HANDBUCH DER ORIENTALISTIK

H erausgegeben von B. S p u l e r
unter M itarbeit von
C. van D ijk , H . F r a n k e , J. G o n d a , H . H a m m i t z s g h , W . H elck , B. H rouda,

D . S i n o r , J. S t a r g a r d t u n d F . V o s
HANDBUCH DER ORIENTALISTIK ANCIENT JEWISH ART
SIEBEN TE A B T E IL U N G
KUNST UND ARCHÄOLOGIE AND ARCHAEOLOGY
H era usg eg eben vo n J . S T A R G A R D T
IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL
E R S T E R BAND BY

DER ALTE VORDERE ORIENT

Z W E IT E R A B S C H N IT T RACHEL HACHLILI
DIE DENKMÄLER
H e r a u s g e g e b e n v o n B. H R O U D A

B — VORDERASIEN

L IE F E R U N G 4

ANCIENT JEWISH ART

AND ARCHAEOLOGY
IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL

A
*O B / Ä
-Jig s[# ^
M wi A

E .J . B R IL L
LEID E N · NEW Y O R K · K 0 B E N H A V N · K Ö L N
1988
 TO M Y F A M IL Y
GAD
Library of Congress C ataloging-in‫־‬P u b lication D ata
GUY,; SIGAL, N I V
H achlili, R achel.
A n cient Jew ish art and archaeology in the land o f
Israel.
(H andb uch der O rientalistik. 7. A b teilung, K unst
und A rchäologie, IS S N 0169-9474; 1. B d., D er alte
V ordere O rient, 2. A bschnitt, D ie D enkm äler, B,
V orderasien, Lfg. 4)
Bibliography: p.
Includes index.
1. P alestine— A ntiquities. 2. E xcavations
(A rchaeology)— Palestine. 3. Jew ish art and sym b olism —
Palestine. 4. Art, Jew ish — Palestine. 5. Synagogue
architecture— Palestine. 6. Synagogue art— Palestine.
I. T itle. II. Series: H andbuch der O rientalistik.
Siebente A b teilung, K unst und Archäologie; 1. B d., 2.
A bschnitt, B, Lfg. 4.
D S 1 1 1 .8 .H 3 3 1987 9 3 3 ’.05 87-8039
IS B N 90-04-08.115-1

IS S N 0169-9474
IS B N 90 04 08115 a

© Copyright 1988 by E. J . Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands

A ll rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or

translated in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, microfiche
or any other means without written permission from the publisher

PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS

 !

9 -. !‫;' ־‬

CONTENTS

List of Figures ................................................................. xi

List of Plates .......................... xvn
Acknowledgements ........... xx
Foreword ............................................ xxi
A bbreviations .............. , .............................. xxiv
Introduction ....................... .................. . — ........... 1
Historical Background ....................... :....................................................................... 3

P art O ne

JE W IS H A R T AN D A R C H A E O L O G Y IN T H E SEC O N D T E M P L E P E R IO D

I. A rch itectu re....................................... 9

A) H asm onean A rc h ite ctu re ....... 9
B) H erodian A rc h ite ctu re ............ 11
1. Characteristic F eatu res...... 13
2. Sources and Influences...... 14
3. M ajor Building Projects: .. 15
a) The T em p le.................... 17
b) Palaces ............................ 32
c) F o rtresses......................... 45
d) Jerusalem City Walls ... 51
e) Caesarea H a r b o u r ____ 53
4. O ther H erodian Structures 55

II. A r t.......................................................................................................... 65
A) Floor Pavem ents................................................. 65
B) Wall P a in tin g ............................................................................. 67
C) S tucco.......................................................... 71
D) Stone Carving and S to n em aso n s............................................ 72
E) M o tifs .......................................................................................... 79
V III CONTENTS CONTENTS IX

III. Second Tem ple Period Synagogues 84 2. The R itual O b je c ts .................... 256
3. T he Ark of the S cro lls....................................................... 272
IV. Funerary Customs and A r t 89
4. The C o n c h ............................................................................ 280
A) Burial C u s to m s 89
B) Figurative A r t ... ........................................... 285
B) Funerary A r t 103
1. Biblical S c e n e s................................................................. 287
V. Q um ran and the D ead Sea Scrolls 120 2. Mythological and Pagan representations....................... 301
A) Q u m r a n 120 3. The Zodiac P a n e l............................................................... 301
B) T he Q um ran L ib ra r y 123 4. Inhabited Scrolls.............. 310
C) Com m unity Customs and O rg a n iz a tio n — 125
D) T he Identification of the Q um ran Sect with the Essenes 127 X. Motifs of Jew ish A r t ................ 317
V I. The Bar Kokhba P erio d 128
X I. Com position and Style..................................................................... 347
A) M osaic Floor Com position and S tyle................. 347
P art T wo B) Relief and Sculpture Com position and Style ............... 364

JE W IS H A R T A N D A R C H A E O L O G Y IN LA TE A N T IQ U IT Y
X II. Origins and Sources of Jew ish A rt .............................................. 366
A) O riental Elements in Jew ish A rt.................... . . . '................. 366
V II. The Synagogue 135
B) H ellenistic-Rom an Elements and Sources of Jew ish A rt. 368
A) The Location of the Synagogue 135‫׳‬
C) Byzantine Elements in Jew ish A rt......................................... 369
B) The O rigin and H istory of the Synagogue 135
C) T he Function of the Synagogue Com pared to the Je ru sa ­
lem T e m p le 138 X III. A Com parison between Jew ish and C hristian A r t .................. 370
D) The Synagogue and the C o m m u n ity .... 139 A) T he Parallel but Separate Development of Synagogue and
C hurch M osaic P avem ents.................... 370
V III. Synagogue Architecture and Decoration 141 B) A Com parison of Biblical Scenes in both Jew ish and
A) Characteristic Features of Synagogue A rchitecture 143 Christian Art ....................................................... 373
1. The F a c a d e 143 C) Architectural Com parison ..................... 374
2. The T orah Shrine: the Focal P o in t 166
3. T he G allery ... 194
X IV . Distinguishing Features of Jewish A r t ........................................ 376
B) Synagogue A r t 199
A) Unidentical Symmetrical C om position................................ 376
1. Architectural O rn a m e n ta tio n 200
B) Iconographically-Decorated Functional M osaic Floors 379
2. Floor P avem ents 221
C) Intentional Imperfection in Jew ish Funerary A r t............. 380
3. Frescoes 224
C) Synagogue Inscriptions * 225
D) C onclusions 227 XV. Artists and Pattern Books............................................................... 383
A) Artists, Craftsm en and W orkshops...................................... 383
IX . Iconography and Sym bolism 234 1. Jew ish A rtists..................................... 386
A) Jew ish S ym bols 234 2. Beth Shecarim W orkshops ................................................ 387
1. The M e n o ra h 236 3. Craftsm en and W orkshops............................T................... 388
X CONTENTS

B)P attern Books ............................................................................ 391

1. P attern Books for M osaic Pavem ents .......... 391 L IS T S O F F IG U R E S
2.Jew ish Pattern Books............................................................ 393
C hapter 1
X V I. D ating of the Synagogue..................................... · 396
1 T h e H asm onean Palace C om plex, Jericho (after N etzer 1983: 100).
2 Jeru salem in the Second T em ple Period.
X V II. Conclusions......................................................................................... 401 3a P lan o f the Second T em ple.
3b R econstruction o f the T em ple on the T em ple M ou n t (after Ben D o v 1982: 98).
Bibliography.................................................................................................................... 405 4 R econstructions o f the T em ple M ou n t (after Ben D o v 1982: 98-99).
5 Plan o f the T em ple M ou n t (after A vi-Y onah).
G lo ssary ............................................................. ............................................................. 417 6 R econstruction o f the N icanor G ate (after A vi-Y onah).
7a R econstruction o f the T em ple facade (after A vi-Y on ah 1956: fig. 6).
Chronology of the H asm onean and H erodian Dynasties in the Second 7b T h e D u ra Europos fresco (after A vi-Y on ah 1956: fig. 5).
Tem ple Period .................................... ^18 7c T h e Bar K okhba C oin (after A vi-Y on ah 1956: fig. 4).
8a T h e G ates at the W estern W all (after B en -D ov 1983: 141).
Index ................................................................. ^19 8b T h e Eastern G ate o f the T em ple M ount (after B en -D ov 1983: pp. 136, 138, 139).
9a-c H uldah G ates, Jerusalem (after Ben D o v 1983: 152).
10 T h e W inter Palaces at Jericho: T he H asm onean P alace.(a) H er o d ’s W inter Palace I.(b ) H ero d ’s
Plates W inter Palace II.(c) H erod ’s W inter Palace III.(d ) (after N etzer 1983: 97).
11 Jerich o W inter Palace II (after N etzer 1983: 105).
12 Jerich o W inter Palace III C om plex (after N etzer 1983: 105).
13 R econstruction o f Jericho W inter Palace III (after N etzer 1975: fig. 4).
14 Plan o f G reater H erodium (after N etzer 1981a: ill. 85).
15 H erodian Palace-Fortress (after C orbo 1967).
16 Plan o f M asada (after Y adin 1965).
17 T h e N orthern Palace-villa, M asada (after A vi-Y on ah et al. 1957: fig. 18).
18 T h e Palaces o f M asada.
19 M asada, W estern Palace, R oyal W ing (a), and T w in Palace o f Jericho (b) (after N etzer 1982b: 23).
20 A lexandrium , Plan o f R em ains (after Tsafrir 1982: 136).
21 Plan o f Cypros (after N etzer 1975b: 116).
22 Plan o f M achaerus (after C orbo 1980: Fig. 71).
23a,b Jeru salem C ity W all (after Ben D ov 1983: 44, 47).
24 Plan o f ancient C aesarea harbours after A . R ab an, Guide to Sebastos: 1) R om an aqueduct; 2) H ero­
dian m ain sewer; 3) B yzantine city wall; 4) R om an hippodrom e; 5) H ellenistic harbour; 6) C ity
walls o f Straton’s tower; 7) C ity wall; 8) H erodian harbour; 9) C rusader harbour; 10) Later R om an
harbour; 11) R om an streets; 12) Fish M arket; 13) R om an theatre.
25a,b Jerusalem H ouses: a) R esidence; b) Palatial M ansion (after A vigad 1983: figs. 64, 84).
26a-e Bath H ouses: a) M asada; b) H erodium Palace-Fortress; c) Jericho W inter Palace III; d) and e)
Cypros; 1) Caldarium ; 2) Tepidarium ; 3) Frigidarium ; 4) A podyterium . (C ypros, after N etzer
1975b: 116).
27 R econstruction o f the caldarium at C ypros, U p per Bath H ou se (after N etzer 1975b: 117).
28 R itual Bath, Jerusalem ; 1) V estibule; 2) R itual Bath; 3) “ Store” Pool; 4) Bathroom (after A vigad
1983: fig. 145).
29 H ippodrom e at Jericho and Sam aria stadium (after N etzer 1983: 114).
XII LIST OF FIGURES
C hapter II.
1 O pus Sectile Floor Patterns frojn Jericho. W inter Palace III (after N etzer 1974: 36).
2 O pus Sectile Pattern in a Jérusalem H ouse (after A vigad 1983: fig. 152).
3 M arble-im itative Fresco from N orth Palace at M asada (after A vi-Y on ah et al. 1957: fig. 16).
4 P ainted Frieze o f Floral M otifs (after A vigad 1983: fig. 106).
5 C apital from T em ple M ou n t Excavations.
6 Ionic C apital from U p per C ity E xcavations (after A vigad 1983: fig. 180).
7a‫־‬c D ecorated Stone D om es o f the H uldah G ates (after Ben D o v 1983: pp. 136, 138, 139).
8 Stone T able T op (after A vigad 1983: fig. 194).
9 Stone T able T ops (after A vigad 1983: fig. 185).
C hapter III
1 Second T em ple P eriod Synagogues: a) M asada; b) H erodium ; c) G am la; d) M igdal building
(Synagogue?).
Chapter IV .
la ,b : a) Loculi T om b Plan, b) T h e Jerich o G oliath Loculi T om b Plan.
2 T om b w ith C offin Burials, Jericho.
3 A Jerich o w ooden Coffin.
4 Four O ssuaries in O n e L oculus, Jericho.
5 T h e Inscribed Bowl: a) Interior; b) Exterior, Jericho.
6 U m m el‫־‬cA m ed T om b (after A vigad 1975: 20).
7 Frieze T om b (after A vigad 1956: fig. 17).
8 R estored Facade o f the “ Tomb, o f the K in g s” (after A vigad 1956: fig. 18).
9 T h e G rapes T om b (after A vigad 1956: fig. 13).
10 T h e G able o f the T om b o f Jehoshaphat (after A vigad 1954: fig. 77).
11 T h e K idron V alley M onum ental T om b s (after A vigad 1954: fig. 48).
12 Bene H ezir T om b Facade and its R estored Nefesh (after A vigad 1956: fig. 24).
13 M on u m en t o f A bsalom (after A vigad 1954: fig. 52).
14 T om b o f H ero d ’s Fam ily (after A vigad 1956: fig. 27).
15 O rnam ented O ssuaries (after Figueras 1983).
16 O rnam ented O ssuaries from a W orkshop.
17 O rnam ented O ssuaries from a W orkshop.
18 Sarcophagus from H ero d ’s F am ily T om b (after A vigad 1956: fig. 28).
19 Sarcophagus from the “ T om b o f the K in g s” (after A vigad 1956: fig. 20).
20 R econstruction o f Jericho T om b with W all Painting.
21 D raw ing o f the Jerich o T om b W all Painting.
22 D raw ing o f Nefesh on a T om b W all, Jericho.
23 A T hree-D im ension al Stone Nefesh, Jericho.
Chapter V
1 Q um ran, Plan o f Period l a (after D avies 1982: Plan 2).
2 Q um ran, Plan o f Period lb (after D avies 1982: Plan 3).
LIST OF FIGURES XIII
Chapter V I
1 T h e C ave o f Letters, N ahal H ever, Ju d ean D esert (after Y adin 1966: 58-59).
C hapter V II
1 C apernaum , Plan o f B uildings and Synagogue (after C orbo 1975: pi. 1).
2 C horazin, B uildings and Synagogue (after Y eivin 1973: 146).
C hapter V III
1 Plans o f G alilean Synagogues: 1) Chorazin; 2) Capernaum ; 3) Barcam; 4) 5Arbel; 5) Sh em ca; 6)
M eiron; 7) G ush H alav; 8) M arous; 9) Nabratein; 10) cA m m u dim .
2 Plans o f G olan Synagogues: 1) U m m el‫־‬Kanatir; 2) K azrin; 3) Dikke; 4) cEn N eshut; 5) K anef; 6)
cA ssalieh (after Z. M aoz).
3 Plans o f Synagugues with N iches: 1) 5Eshtenu^a; 2) Susiya; 3) R im m on; 4) Beth Shecarim; 5) cEn-
G edi; 6) Beth She^an B; 7) R ehov; 8) Ja p h ica; 9) H useifa; 10) H am m ath T iberias A; 11) H am m ath
T iberias B.
4 Plans o f Synagogues with Apses: 1) Jericho; 2) M a coz H ayim ; 3) M a con; 4) G aza; 5) Beth DAlpha;
6) N a caran; 7) Gerasa; 8) H am m ath G ader.
5 Plan o f :)E shtem oca Synagogue (after Y eivin 1981: 120).
6 Plan o f Susiya Synagogue (after G utm an et al 1981: 123).
7 Plan o f H am m ath G ader Synagogue.
8 Plan o f H . Sh em ca Synagogue (after M eyers 1981a: 72).
9 M a coz H ayim Plan, 3 Phases (after Tzaferis 1982: figs. 2-4).
10a‫־‬c R econstruction o f Synagogue B uildings w ith “ Syrian” G able: a) G eneral reconstruction; b)
C apernaum — new reconstruction; c) Barcam — new reconstruction.
11 R econstruction o f C apernaum synagogue (after Sukenik 1949: fig. 5).
12 R econstruction o f H . cA m m udim . Synagogue Facade.
13 R econstruction o f Dikke Synagogue (after K W 1916: fig. 251).
14 R econstruction o f U m m el‫־‬K anatir Synagogue (after K W 1916: fig. 272).
15 A rchitectural Fragm ent, K azrin Synagogue.
16 A W ind ow , K azrin Synagogue.
17a‫־‬c Chorazin: a) aedicula colum n; b) plan; c) reconstruction o f inner facade (after Y eivin 1985: figs.
1-3).
18 Lintel o f A edicula, N abratein (after M eyers et al. 1981a: 240).
19 K azrin A edicula C olum n.
20a‫־‬c A edicula R econstructions: a) one aedicula betw een the m ain entrance and one o f the side en ­
trances; b) an aedicula flanking the single entrance; c) two aedicula flanking the m ain entrance.
21 G ush H alav, Plan and R econstruction (after M eyers et al. 1979: figs. 1 , 2 ) .
22 R econstruction o f M eiron Synagogue (after M eyers et al. 1978: fig. 12).
23 Plans o f N abratein Synagogue, 3 Phases (after M eyers et al. 1982: figs. 1-3).
24a,b a) C apernaum Synagogue (after Loffreda 1975: plan 11); b) reconstruction o f synagogue
interior.
25a,b Sardis Synagogue R econstruction: a) interior looking w est (after Seager 1975: fig. 12); b) in ­
terior looking east.
XIV LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF FIGURES XV

26 Lintel o f K okhav H aY arden (after Ben D ov 1981: 96). 9a, b G ilded G old G lasses.
27 Beth Shecarim C atacom b 4, W all o f H all A. 10 M en oroth from Beth Shecarim (after A vigad 1976: fig. 130).
28 Plan o f R ehov Synagogue (after V itto 1981a: 90). 11 M en orah from the D ura Europos Fresco.
29 T orah shrine depictions. 12 M en orah on the C oin o f M attathias A n tigon us.
30 T orah shrine depictions. 13 Five-Branched M enorah, C apernaum .
31 Screens. 14 M en oroth w ith R itual O bjects from: a) H am m ath Tiberias; b) M a con; c) Beth She^an; d) Jericho.
32 Screens with M enorah O rnam entation. 15a‫־‬c R itual O bjects on M osaics: Shofar; Incense Shovel; L ulav and Ethrog; Kelilah.
33 Seat o f M oses from H am m ath Tiberias. 16 R itu al O bjects on Stone: Shofar; Incense Shovel; L ulav and Ethrog.
34 Seat o f M oses from Chorazin. 17 G erasa, M enorah and R itual O bjects.
35 H . Sh em ca Synagogue R econstruction (after M eyers et al. 1976: fig. 3.10). 18 M en oroth w ith H an gin g Lam ps.
36 O rnate Entrance Frame T yp e A. 19 H an gin g Lam ps on T orah Shrine.
37 O rnate Entrance Fram e T yp e B. 20 Polycandelon.
38 O rnate Entrance Fram e T yp e C , cA ssalieh (after M aoz 1980: 17). 21 D epiction s o f Independent Arks.
39 H . Sum m aqa facade (after K W 1916: 274). 22 D epiction s o f Arks H oused in T orah Shrines.
40 K azrin Synagogue Facade (after M aoz 1981: 103). 23 D epiction s o f T orah Shrines.
41 K an ef Synagogue Facade (after M aoz 1980: 13). 24a‫־‬c R econstructions o f the Ark H oused in the T orah Shrine: a) a general exam ple; b) reconstruction
42 T yb e Synagogue Facade, R econstructed after the K azrin Facade. w ith the cEn Sam sam aedicula stone; c) reconstruction with the U m m el‫־‬K anatir aedicula
43 Lintels, T ype I M ouldings: a‫־‬b) Barcam; c‫־‬e) M eiron; f) Nabratein; g) G ush H alav; h) 3Arbel; i) capital.
C horazin. 25 C on ch in W reath and in A canthus Leaves.
44 L intels, T ype I: N abratein and G ush H alav (after K W 1916: figs. 195, 209). 26 C on ch on O ssuary, Jerusalem .
45a‫־‬c Lintels (with N ikae), T yp e II: a) Barcani, b) D ikke, c) R am ah. 27 T om b Facade, Jerusalem .
46a‫־‬d Lintels (with Eagles), T ype II: a) Safed, b ‫־‬c) D abburah, d) Jap h ica. 28 C on ch on Sarcophagi, Beth Shecarim.
47 L intels, T ype III. 29 R econstructed w indow from C apernaum .
48 Lintels, T yp e IV . 30a,b C onch on Architectural Fragm ents, R aphid (G olan).
49a‫־‬c Lintels, T yp e V: a‫־‬b) C apernaum , c) K azrin side entrance. 31 Sacrifice o f Isaac, Beth A lpha (after Sukenik 1949: fig. 2).
50a‫־‬f Lintels, T yp e V (w ith M enorah): a‫־‬b) C horazin, c) N aveh , d) Jap h ica, e) Sarona, f) Sh em ca. 32 Sacrifice o f Isaac, D u ra Europos.
51a‫־‬e L intels, T yp e V I: a‫־‬c) C apernaum , d) Jap h ica, e) Safsaf. 33a,b a) Plan o f G erasa Synagogue; b) N o a h ’s Ark, Gerasa.
52a‫־‬j Lintels, T yp e V II: a‫־‬c) N aveh; d) Bathra; e) Daliah; f) Nabratein; g) C apernaum ; h) 34 D an iel in the L io n s’ D en , N a caran.
3A hm edieh; i) K anef; j) C horazin. 35a,b Jap h ica: a) Plan; b) M osaic Floor.
53a-c Lintels, T yp e V III: a) K azrin, b) T yb e, c) cAssalieh. 36 O rpheus, D u ra Europos (after Sukenik 1947: 63).
54 Lintels, T ype IX : N aveh. 37 H ou se o f L eontis, Beth She^an (after Zori 1966: fig. 1).
55 cEn N esh ut Synagogue Architrave. 38 Four Zodiac M osaic P avem ents.
56 R e lie f with Ark, C apernaum . 39a,b Zodiacs: a) H am m ath Tiberias; b) H useifa.
57 M osaic Floor, M arous (after Ilan). 4 0 a ,b Zodiacs: a) Beth 3Alpha; b) N a carari.
41 Inhabited Scrolls, M a con (after A vi-Y on ah 1960b: fig. 13).
C hapter IX 42 Inhabited Scrolls, Beth She^an B (after Bahat).
43 Inhabited Scrolls, Shellal Church.
1 M enorah Incised on Stucco from the Jew ish Q uarter Excavations, Jerusalem (after A vigad 1983: 1).
2a Sm all Sun D ial, T em ple M ou n t Excavations, Jerusalem .
C hapter X
2b Incisions on a W all in J a so n ’s T om b , Jerusalem .
3 T h e T em ple M enorah on the Arch o f T itu s, R om e. 1 “ N ik a e ” Sarcophagus, Beth Shecarim (after A vigad 1976: fig. 64).
4a,b a) M enoroth on Lamps; b) M enorah on Sarcophagus from R om e. 2 “ A canthus A ” Sarcophagus, Beth Shecarim (after A vigad 1976: fig. 66).
5a,b Chart w ith Form s o f M enoroth. 3 Barcam , R elief (after Sukenik 1932: fig. 50).
6 M enorah from Beth She^an B M osaic Floor. 4a‫־‬c Lions on Lintels from: a) H . cA m m udim ; b) C apernaum ; c) Sum m aqa.
7 M enoroth Flanking the Ark, Beth Shecarim drawings. 5 L ion from Beth She^an B M osaic.
8a‫־‬c M enoroth Flanking the Ark: a) H am m ath Tiberias; b) Beth 3Alpha; c) N a caran. 6 L ions on “ L io n ” and “ E agle” Sarcophagi, Beth Shecarim .
XVI LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF FIGURES AND PLATES XVII

C hapter X I V
7a-c Lions F lanking Inscriptions.
8 L ion from U m m el-K anatir. la -c O ssuaries.
9 L ion R e lie f from U m m el‫־‬K anatir. 2a “ D au gh ters” Sarcophagus, Beth Shecarim.
10 T hree-dim ensional lion from C horazin. 2b Sarcophagus 87, Beth Shecarim (after A vigad 1976: fig. 73).
11 T hree-D im ension al L ion from Barcam.
12 L ion from cEn N eshut.
C hapter X V
13 L intel Fragm ent from R ehov.
14 “ A canthus B ” Sarcophagus, Beth Shecarim (after A vigad 1976: fig. 66). la -e Inscriptions: a) cAlm a; b) H . cA m m udim ; c) Dabbura; d) K efar Kana; e) Sepphoris (after N aveh
15 “ H u n t” Sarcophagus, Beth Shecarim (after A vigad 1976: fig. 63). 1978:22,26,41,51).
16 B u ll’s H ead on the “ E agle” Sarcophagus, Beth Shecarim. 2 D esign on Lead C offins, Beth Shecarim (after A vigad 1976: fig. 89).
17 N a caran Stags M osaic. 3 M osaic Border Patterns (after A vi-Y on ah 1981b: 285).
18a‫־‬b a)R aphid fishes; b) A fish carved on stone from D abbura.
19a-b D olphins F lanking a W reath on: a) “ M en orah ” Sarcophagus; b) “ N ik a e” Sarcophagus (after M aps
A vigad 1976: fig. 65).
1) H er o d ’s building projects (after N etzer 1981b: 49).
20a,b a)Lintel Soffit, G ush H alav; b) D abbura Lintel Fragm ent.
2) A n cient synagogue sites in the Land o f Israel.
21 C apernaum Frieze.
22 A n Eagle on the H . Sh em ca Synagogue, W est Entrance (after M eyers et al. 1976: fig. 3.7).
23a,b a)Eagle on “ E agle” Sarcophagus, Beth Shecarim; b) M ausoleum Facade, Beth Shecarim. Tables:
24 Eagle on the M a con M osaic. T able 1: Second T em ple synagogues.
25 Birds on Sarcophagi, Beth Shecarim. T able 2: Synagogues in the Land o f Israel.
26a,b Birds on M osaic, Beth She3an B. T able 3: D istribution chart.
27 Birds P ecking G rapes, “ Sh ell” Sarcophagus, Beth Sh ecarim. T able 4: C om parison chart.
28 Bird C ages, M a con and G aza.
29a,b Peacocks, G aza and Beth She5an B M osaics.
30 “ C o lu m n ” Sarcophagus, Beth Shecarim (after A vigad 1976: fig. 68). L IS T O F P L A T E S
3 la -c Beth Shecarim R e lie f and Graffiti: a) Figure w ith m enorah on its head; b) Rider; c) M an and
horse. 1 R econstruction o f the Second T em ple by A vi-Y on ah (H oly Land H otel, Jerusalem ).
32 H ead on “ M a sk ” Sarcophagus, Beth Shecarim. 2 G eneral V iew o f T em ple M ount Excavations, Jerusalem .
33a‫־‬c G enre Scenes: a,b). Beth 3A lpha m osaic; c) M a con M osaic. 3 M onum ental Stairway near D ouble G ates, Jerusalem .
4 G eneral V iew , M asada.
C hapter X I 5 G eneral V iew H erodium .
6a‫־‬c M osaic Floors in H ouses, U pper C ity, Jerusalem .
1 G eneral Plan o f H am m ath Tiberias B. (after D othan 1981: 66).
2 G eneral Plan o f Beth She^an A (after Zori 1967: fig. 3). 7a,b M asada M osaics.
8 T h e N azarite Sarcophagus, Jerusalem .
3 G eneral Plan o f Beth 3A lpha (after Sukenik 1932).
9 a‫־‬c Stone Fragm ents o f O rnam ented D om es, H uldah G ates, Jerusalem .
4 G eneral Plan o f N a caran (after V in cen t 1961: PI. V II).
10a,b a) M asada Synagogue; b) H erodium Synagogue.
5 G eneral Plan o f H useifa (after E A E 1976).
11 G am la Synagogue.
6 Schem e A.
12 Jericho C em etery.
7 Schem e B.
13 O ssuary with Bones from Jericho.
8 Schem e C.
14 Inscribed O ssuary from Jericho: “ Y ehoezer son o f Y ehoezer G oliath ” in G reek, upper line, and
9 N ave M osaic, H am m ath Tiberias.
in A ram aic, lower line.
10 N ave M osaic, Beth 3Alpha.
15 Inscribed bow l from Jericho.
11 N ave M osaic, N a caran.
12 N ave M osaic, H am m ath G ader. 16 T om b o f Zechariah, Jerusalem .
13 N ave M osaic, Jericho (after Jericho-Kardom 1983: 133). 17a-c D ecorated O ssuaries, Jerusalem .
18 O rnam ented O ssuary, Jerusalem (on exhibit, Israel M u seu m , Jerusalem ).
14a-f P anel o f Flanked Inscriptions.
XV III LIST OF PLATES LIST OF PLATES XIX

19 O ssuary, Jericho. “ Y ehoezer son o f E leazar” inscribed in left corner. 61 T iberias M osaic.
20 G eneral V iew o f Q um ran. 62 Lam ps with M enoroth and R itual objects.
21 Barcam Synagogue facade. 63 Ark on M osaic, Jericho.
22 M eiron Synagogue facade. 64 Sacrifice o f Isaac, Beth 3Alpha.
23 A edicula C apital, U m m el‫־‬K anatir. 65 N o a h ’s Ark, Gerasa.
24 A edicula Lintel, N abratein. 6 6 D avid o f G aza (at the beginn in g o f excavations).
25 A edicula in situ, M arous. 67 D avid o f G aza (after 1968 Excavations).
26 cEn Sam sam R elief. 68 U p p er P anel, H ou se o f L eontis, Beth She‫*׳‬an.
27 D u ra Europos N iche. 69 C entral P anel, H ou se o f Leontis, Beth She3an.
28 A n A edicula R elief, Chorazin. 70 L ow er Panel, H ouse o f Leontis, Beth She3an.
29a cA ssalieh Lintel. 71 Zodiac, H am m ath Tiberias:
29b T yb e Lintel. 72 Zodiac, H useifa.
30 “ Sh ell” Sarcophagus, Beth Shecarim. 73 Z odiac, Beth 3Alpha.
31 T orah Shrine R elief, Beth Shecarim. 74 Z odiac, N a caran.
32 T orah Shrine R elief, Pekiin. 75 R em ains o f Zodiac C ircle, Left Corner, Susiya.
33 T om b D oor, K efar Yasif. 76 Sun G od, M osaic, Beth 3Alpha.
34 Stone Plaque (on exhibit, Israel M u seu m , Jerusalem ). 77 Sun G od, M osaic, N a caran.
35 A n A edicula R e lie f Fragm ent, Zum im ra. 78 Sun G od, M osaic, H am m ath Tiberias.
36 H am m ath T iberias Screen (on exhibit, H echt M u seu m , H aifa U n iversity). 79a‫־‬c Zodiac Signs: A ries, T aurus, G em ini.
37a,b Screen, 3A scalon (on exhibit, Israel M u seu m , Jerusalem ). 8 0a‫־‬c Zodiac Signs: Cancer, Leo, V irgo.
38 C onsols, C apernaum . 8 1a‫־‬c Zodiac Signs: Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius.
39a,b a) Synagogue Facade, C horazin; b) Synagogue Facade, K azrin. 82a‫־‬c Zodiac Signs: Capricorn, A quarius, Pisces.
40a M ain Portal, Barcam Synagogue. 83a,b Seasons: Nisan (Spring) and Tammuz (Sum m er).
40b Side Portal, Barcam Synagogue. 84a-b Seasons: Tishri (A utum n) and Tebeth (W inter).
41a‫־‬c a) K azrin synagogue; b) 3E shtem oca synagogue; c) Susiya synagogue. 85 M osaic Floor, Beth She3an B.
42a‫־‬f Capitals: a) Capernaum ; b) Caesarea; c) and d) cEn Neshut; e) K azrin; f) Pehora, pedestal, (cEn 86a‫־‬c “ Inhabited Scroll” M osaic, G aza.
N eshut). 87 U p p er Part o f M osaic, M a con.
43 Frieze Fragm ent, C apernaum . 88 cEn Sam sam R elief, D etail.
44 Frieze Fragm ent, C apernaum . 89a,b T w o Stone Plaques.
45 Frieze Fragm ent, C horazin. 90 cEn N esh ut Lioness.
46 Frieze Fragm ent w ith M ask, C horazin. 91 C arved Lintel from W adi el‫־‬H am m am , Tiberias.
4 7 a,b Frieze Fragm ents with V intage Scene. 92 Basalt Lion from M ishrafawi.
48 M arous M osaic. 93 C horazin G able.
49 M osaic Panel w ith Inscription, H am m ath Tiberias. 94 Fragm ent w ith Eagle, Dikke.
95 M a coz H ayim M osaic.
50 M osaic Em blem , Jericho.
51 M osaic Inscriptions, cE n‫־‬G edi. 9 6a‫־‬c M osaic P avem ents, cE n‫־‬G edi.
52 M osaic Inscriptions, R ehov. 97a L ow er Part o f M osaic P avem ent, M a con.
53 Arch o f T itus, R om e. 97b Parts o f the M osaic Fram e, Beth 3Alpha.
54 Stone M enorah, H am m ath Tiberias. 98 R elief, Dabbura.
55 T irath Zvi, . M osaic. 99a,b G aza screens.
56a,b M enoroth on M osaic Floor, H u seifa. 100 Bird cage, N a caran m osaic.
57 Bronze M enorah, cE n‫־‬G edi. 101 Panel o f Jew ish Sym bols, H am m ath Tiberias.
58 Ivory Plaque from Beth She3an. 102 Panel o f Jew ish Sym bols, Beth 3Alpha.
59a,b M enoroth and T able on C oins o f M attathias A ntigonus. 103 Panel o f Jew ish Sym bols, Beth She3an A .
60 H ulda M osaic. 104 P anel o f Jew ish Sym bols, Susiya.
XX LIST OF PLATES

105 P anel o f Jew ish Sym bols, N a caran.

106 Inscription, Beth She^an B.
107 R oom L, M onastery, Beth She1‫־‬an.
108 Lintel with Inscription, N abratein.
FO R E W O R D
109 Lintel with Inscription, K asyon.

ACKNOW LEDGEM ENTS
M ost o f the photographs are courtesy o f the Israel D epartm ent o f A ntiquities and M useum s, except:
Pis. 6a-c, 8 are courtesy o f N . Avigad; Pis. 51, 96a‫־‬c courtesy o f D . Barag; Pis. 2, 3, 9 are courtesy
o f M . B en-D ov; Pis. 23, 26, 29, 35, 41, 42c-f, 88, 90, 92, 94, 98 are courtesy o f Z. M aoz.; Pis. 7a,b,
10a are courtesy o f M asada Excavations. Pis. 5, 10b, 20, 41a,b courtesy of Israel G overnm ent Press
O ffice; Pis. 34, 54, 62 courtesy o f Israel M u seu m , Jerusalem .
P hotographs by Z. R adovan: Pis. 2, 10, 11, 21, 22, 24, 2 6 ,.3 8 , 40, 49, 61, 71, 74, 76, 78-84, 88, 100,
107; N . Avigad: 6a-e, 8; A. H ay: 73; Z. Ilan: 25, 48; Z. M aoz: 29, 35, 42c-f, 90, 92, 94, 98; M . Pan:
66; J . Sim on: 109; D . Harris: 62; the author: 39, 93.
T h e drawings are by A di W eichselbaum , except for I V .22, I X .38 by D . Bechar; IV . lb , 2, 4, 20, 21A
by A . Cleja; I V .5 by M , Eichelberg; X I .9 by N . K ubie.
M y sincere thanks are due to the follow ing individuals and institutions who have helped m e and al­
low ed m e to use their photographs and drawings: —
N . A vigad, D . Bahat, D . Barag, M . B en -D ov, A . Berm an, M . D oth an, Z. Ilan, Z. M aoz, E. and
C . M eyers, J . N aveh, E. N etzer, A . R ab an, V . Tzaferis, F. V itto, Z. Y eivin.
Israel D epartm ent o f A ntiquity and M useum s; T h e Israel M u seu m , Jerusalem ; Israel G overnm ent
Press O ffice; M asada Excavations.
For some time now I have felt that a comprehensive study, which would support
my thesis for the existence of an ancient Jew ish Art, could be accomplished by a
compilation of the m aterial excavated in the past few decades, especially the latest
results, together with previous m aterials and studies. I was, therefore, greatly
honoured by the invitation of the late Prof. Dr. J .E . van Lohuizen‫־‬de Leeuw, editor
of the ‘'K unst und Archäologie” Series, to write this book; I regret immensely that
she herself did not live to see its publication. I was particularly pleased about the
invitation because I had been researching and collecting m aterial on this specific
subject for the past ten years and had now reached the stage when I wished to pres­
ent the fruits of this labour.
As a result of the m any excavations in the last decades a large body of new
m aterial has come to light which now allows for a comprehensive treatm ent of an ­
cient Jew ish art and archaeology. Although archaeology is dealt with in detail, the
emphasis of this book, especially in P art II, is on Jew ish art. This, because it has
been a particularly neglected aspect of the field and one on which my own studies
have centered.
The discussion takes the form of a general comparison, divided according to topics
such as Jew ish symbols and other specific subjects, which together create what I
hope is a conclusive case for the existence of Jew ish art during the Second Tem ple
period and Late Antiquity. An understanding of the artistic heritage left us by our
ancestors can help to penetrate the mists of time separating us from those periods.
Jew ish art and archaeology of the Diaspora, which forms an im portant and sup­
plem entary aspect of the subject, will be covered in a second volume in this series
and will follow in the near future: as the am ount of m aterial for this study is vast
it can only be dealt with as a book unto itself.
I should like to express my gratitude to the M em orial Foundation for Jew ish
C ulture for providing funds for parts of the research and to the D orot Foundation
for a grant which helped enable this book to be produced.
A num ber of people also deserve special recognition. M y thanks to Prof. M .
Rosen-Ayalon for her recom m endation. I should like to acknowledge my gratitude
to my late teacher, Prof. M . Avi-Yonah, whose assistant I became during the last
years of his life, and who constantly encouraged me in my research. His pioneer
work in O riental Art will long rem ain the basis for all further studies in this field.
XX II FOREW ORD

I should like to m ention my indebtedness to those who have helped me prepare

this book: warm thanks are due to my friend Stephanie R achum for her encourage­
m ent, advice and her thorough reading of the m anuscript; a special gratitude to Jo a n
M ichaeli, my editor, for her thorough and diligent work; to M artha Adato for her
conscientious and precise typing of the m anuscript; to M alka Hershkovitz for check­
ing parts of the m anuscript; to A di W eichselbaum for his m any drawings published
in this book; to my friends and colleagues, Z. M aoz and M . Ben-Dov, whose discus­
sions helped me clarify my ideas; and especially to D r. L.Y . R ahm ani, who read
the completed m anuscript and who gave me m any helpful suggestions and
criticisms.
I especially w ant to thank my husband G ad whose help was im m easurable; he also
painstakingly prepared the m anuscript using word processing facilities. His help has
m eant that I have been able to finish the m anuscript in less time and with fewer com­
plications than usual. F urther affectionate thanks to my children for their enorm ous
and unfailing help, patience, understanding and encouragem ent.

Rachel Hachlili
H aifa U niversity
N ovem ber 1984

J
 A B B R EV IA TIO N S IN T R O D U C T IO N

A A SO R A nnual o f the A m erican Schools o f O riental R esearch. By the term Jew ish art is m eant an art that was created specifically for the Jew ish
A JA A m erican Journal o f A rchaeology. com m unity. Its form and content were determ ined by the desires of both the upper
Ant Joseph us Jewish Antiquities.
ASR Ancient Synagogues Revealed, ed. L .I. L evine. Jerusalem 1981.
and lower classes, and it was executed in accordance with the spiritual and secular
B B abylonian T alm ud. requirem ents of local congregations. A rt was employed to satisfy both functional and
BA Biblical A rchaeologist. recreational needs.
BAR Biblical A rchaeology R eview .
BASO R Bulletin o f the A m erican Schools o f O riental R esearch.
T he time spanned by Ancient Jew ish Art, discussed in this book, begins in the
BIE S B ulletin o f the Israel Exploration Society (H ebrew ). Second Tem ple period and continues until the end of the period of Late A ntiquity
BJPES B ulletin o f the Jew ish P alestine E xploration Society (H ebrew ). (late second century BCE-seventh century CE).
EAE Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, vols. I-IV . 1975-1978.( ed. M .
A vi-Y onah).
Jew ish art reflects a culture which came into being, not as a consequence of a n a ­
El Eretz Israel. tio n ’s isolation, but rather as the result of a necessity to absorb and assimilate, and
IEJ Israel E xploration Journal. to compete with, the culture of others. Simultaneously with absorbing and
J Jeru salem (Palestinian) T alm ud.
JAOS Journal o f the A m erican O riental Society.
assim ilating elements from its Hellenistic, R om an pagan and later Christian sur­
JB L Journal o f Biblical Literature. roundings, Jew ish art, as will be shown, retained and clung to its fundam entally f
JP O S Journal o f the Palestine O riental Society. spiritual basis, and to its essential beliefs and customs.
KW K ohl, H . and W atzinger, C . Antike Synagogen in Galilaea.
Liber A nnuus Liber A n nu us Studia Biblici Franciscan
T he worship of objects, whether natural or created by m an, was very popular in
M M ishna. ancient times. W ith the proliferation of polytheistic beliefs the necessity for
PEQ P alestine Exploration Q uarterly. organized symbols was realized. In the case of Judaism , however, visual art was not
QDAP Q uarterly o f the D epartm ent o f A ntiquities in Palestine.
RB R evu e Biblique.
an indispensable attribute of worship. O n the contrary, a constant battle raged be­
T T osefta. tween the Jew ish religion which was expressed in abstract values, and pagan w or­
War Joseph us, Jewish War. ship, where symbols and tangible objects were used. Although Judaism in principle
ZDPV Zeitschrift des D eutsch en Palastina-V ereins.
rejected pagan symbols, they nevertheless penetrated Jew ish art as decorative
motifs, void of their original m eaning.
Jew ish art found expression in various aspects of Jew ish life: secular, sacred and
funerary. It adorned public and private buildings, tombs, sarcophagi and ossuaries,
some of which, such as the synagogue interiors and exteriors and the tom b facades
in Jerusalem , are vigorously and splendidly decorated. Jew ish art of the Second
Tem ple period (second century BCE-first century CE) is aniconic and non-
symbolic. M ost of the motifs used are taken from the environm ent. They consist of
plant and geometric motifs expressing growth and productivity and are similar to
patterns used in G raeco-Rom an pagan art. In the struggle against paganism ,
Judaism at that time offered staunch resistance, especially by insisting on obedience
to the “ no graven im age” com m andm ent and by guarding against its violators.
H ence the strict adherence to a non-figurative art form. After the destruction of
Jerusalem and its Tem ple (70 CE) and the Bar K okhba W ar (132-135 CE), Jewish
 2 INTRO DUCTIO N
art, though retaining a degree of continuity with the past, developed completely dif­
ferent, varied and versatile characteristics.
T he Jew ish art which evolved during the period of the third-seventh centuries was
prim arily a popular art, founded on a definitive spiritual outlook. Its study enables
us to reconstruct a vivid picture of the past in which the spiritual and m aterial nature
of Judaism is disclosed.
As we follow the course of the development of Jew ish art, several facts will emerge
as indisputable. D uring the Second Tem ple period the Jews rejected the representa-
( tion of figurative images in their art and used only aniconic, non-figurative motifs
V a n d patterns, which reflected their struggle against both paganism and Christianity.
!However, from the third century until the seventh century, Jews employed
figurative art, images and symbols. They did so with rabbinical tolerance or even
approval. The initiative for the growth of a versatile Jew ish art, and especially for
its figurative and symbolic aspect, lay with the Jew ish population itself, with the n a ­
tional as well as the local communities.
T he elaborate decoration of synagogal and funerary art reflected the natural wish
of society to live in a visually pleasing environm ent, as well as the desire of m an to
conquer m aterial and mould it to his needs. M oreover, it provided an outlet for the
hum an frailty of wishing to impress and attract attention and to dem onstrate power
through symbols and motifs, through magnificence and beauty.
This study will attem pt to examine the available data, and to reach a com prehen­
sive interpretation by determ ining the m eaning and significance of the m aterial
presented. It will discuss the extensive history and development of Jew ish art, its
symbolic and iconographic vocabulary and its characteristic features, and assign
them to their proper context. It will attem pt to examine both the forces of continuity
and discontinuity, thereby draw ing attention to what is truly distinctive in Jew ish
art.
T he book will be divided into two sections: Part O ne, Jew ish Art and Archaeology
of the Second Tem ple period; and Part Two, Jew ish A rt and Archaeology of Late
Antiquity.
/ began to intervene in Jew ish religious practices which caused the successful M acca-
Explanatory Notes
Chronological tenns used for dating are BCE (= Before the Com m on Era)
equating to BC, and CE (= Com m on Era) equating to AD. As most of the dates
m entioned are of the Com m on E ra (C .E .) they have not been labelled; only dates
before the C om m on Era (B .C .E .) are so specified.
The discussion of synagogues in the text as well as their appearance in the chart
is by geographical location from north to south.
H IS T O R IC A L B A C K G R O U N D
Present knowledge of the history of the Jews in the Land of Israel is'based on
literary sources which include the Bible, the writings of Josephus, the M ishna and
T alm ud, and on extensive archaeological excavations.
T he kingdom of Ju d a h was conquered in 586 BCE by N ebuchadnezzar, king of ]
Babylon. The First Tem ple was b urnt down, the capital city of Jerusalem destroyed 1
and the people were taken into exile to Babylonia. Fifty years later, Ju d a h became 1
a province or satrapy of the Persian Em pire; it was nam ed Yehud. T he Persian king,
Cyrus, issued a proclam ation in 538 BCE, allowing the Jew s to return to Jerusalem (
and to rebuild their Tem ple (Ezra I). The exiled Jew s returned to Ju d a h and
Jerusalem in several groups, under Zerubabel (ca. 521 BCE), under Ezra the scribe
(ca. 458 BCE), and under Nehem iah the governor of Ju d a h (ca. 445 BCE). TheyJ
returned with a very strong, national religion, m aintained by a priestly caste.
Zerubabel rebuilt the Tem ple, N ehem iah reconstructed the walls of Jerusalem , and
Ezra and Nehem iah restored the religious and spiritual life, as well as the economic
and social life, of the returning Jews. The province of Ju d a h was granted in ­
dependence as indicated by the coins and inscriptions bearing the nam e of the pro­
vince Yehud.
Alexander the G reat conquered the Persian Em pire in 332 BCE, and Ju d e a
became a Hellenistic province often subject to controversy, passing between the
Syrian Seleucids and the Egyptian Ptolemies. In 200 BCE, Ju d e a, under the rule
of Antiochus III of Syria, gained some adm inistrative autonom y. The priests
became the upper class, and were concentrated in Jerusalem . T he H igh Priest was
the ruler of Ju d e a and the Tem ple, and was appointed by the Seleucid king.
Am ong this upper class Hellenism was predom inant in both social and spiritual
concerns. In 175 BCE, under Antiochus IV , the city of Jerusalem was granted the
status of a Greek polis, and a gym nasium was built. In 168 BCE Antiochus IV built
the “ A kra” fortress which overlooked the Tem ple temenos. T he Seleucids finally
bean Revolt headed by the H asm onean family. In the second century BCE, the
H asm oneans gained political independence, and were the ruler‫־‬s of Ju d ea, both as
H igh Priests and kings, throughout the century.
In 63 BCE Ju d e a and Jerusalem were conquered by Pom pey, and became a *
R om an vassal state. D uring the period 37 BCE-70 C E H erod and his dynasty ruled
Ju d ea, with sporadic rule by R om an procurators. H erod the G reat (who gave his
 4 H ISTO RICAL BACKGROUND
nam e to the H erodian period) was the son of A ntipater, an Edom ite (the Edomites
were a people conquered by the H asm onean ruler Jo h n H yrcanus in ca. 125 BCE
and forced to convert to Judaism ). H erod succeeded the last of the H asm onean kings
and H igh Priests, M attathias Antigonus, becoming king in 37 BCE with the support
of the Rom ans. H e was able to extend his rule over most of the Land of Israel and
even beyond; he built extensively in other countries as well as at home. The Jews
greatly disliked H erod, because of his alien origin, and his being an usurper who
had replaced the legitimate H asm onean kings. Educated in and adm iring Graeco-
R om an culture, H erod began his building projects accordingly: luxurious palaces,
as well as towns with institutions such as theatres, hippodrom es and gymnasia were
constructed (see pp. llff.). The H erodian period is rem arkable in its extensive
building and in its ornam ental art.
H ero d ’s family continued to rule Ju d e a and several other provinces. The Jew ish
kings of this dynasty were A grippa I (who ruled in 41-44 CE) and A grippa II (50‫־‬ca.
100 CE).
Full scale war against the Rom ans broke out in 66 CE, but was suppressed in 70
j CE, when Jerusalem and the Tem ple were conquered and destroyed. M asada, how-
I ever, m aintained resistance, finally falling after a long siege in 73 CE. U pon T itu s’
-^conquering Jerusalem in 70 CE, the city became a base for a R om an garrison, for
the T enth Legion “ Fretensis.” D uring the reign of the R om an em peror H adrian
I a second war against the Rom ans broke out, and was led by Bar K okhba (132-135
CE). It was cruelly suppressed: Jerusalem was completely razed and the R om an col­
ony of “ Aelia C apitolina” was built on its ruins. In the period following the destruc­
tion of the Jew ish state, and of Jerusalem and its Tem ple in 70 CE, the Jews
continued to live in the area of Jerusalem and Ju d e a until the Bar K okhba war of
132-135 CE. D uring these six decades, little art either flourished or survived. After
the Bar K okhba W ar, Jew s were expelled from Ju d e a and began to move to the
Galilee in large num bers.
In ca. 190 CE, the R om an A ntonine dynasty with its G raeco-Rom an traditions
was replaced by the Severan and Syrian em perors, whose roots were in the O rient.
Several of these emperors m aintained favourable relations with the Jews, as in ­
dicated by the Kasyon inscription, which offers the dedication of a building by the
Jew ish com m unity to Septimius Severus and his family (PI. 109; p. 396). This was
a period of political peace and economic prosperity. Such an atm osphere was
favourable for closer relations between the Jew s and their neighbouring cultures,
particularly with the R om an O rien t’s Hellenistic culture. T hus, the end of the sec­
ond, and the third centuries CE m arked an im portant period in the evolution of
Jew ish art. A m ajor change occurred, prim arily in the introduction of representa­
HISTO RICAL BACKGROUND 5
tional, figurative and symbolic elements into the traditionally aniconic Jew ish art,
m anifesting itself in both synagogal and funerary art. D uring this period the Jew ish
comm unities in the Galilee flourished; towns and synagogues were built. These
comm unities were prosperous and independent, being governed by the Sanhedrin, jj
who were the rabbis and the elders of the family of Hillel. Endeavouring to preserve !
the beliefs and traditions of Judaism they conducted life according to the halakha.
T he climax of this period was m arked by the codification of the M ishna.
In 324 CE, C onstantine the G reat conquered his eastern enemies, and C hris­
tianity became the official Im perial faith. The Land of Israel now became an im por­
tant religious centre for Christianity. Pilgrims began to pay visits, and the country
became a site for vast building projects. Churches and m onasteries were constructed
throughout the country. The Jews in the Land of Israel found it necessary to protect
themselves, both politically and religiously, against C hristianity. The C hristian
church did not prohibit Judaism , but it did have an extremely negative attitude ‫׳‬
towards the Jew s, as is indicated by the anti-Jewish laws which contained insulting
language and which provided encouragem ent to C hristian zealots who harm ed Jews
and Jew ish institutions. Christianity also claimed propriety of the Land of Israel
because of C hristian history and the existence of holy places.In the fourth century,
the anti-Jewish legislation of the C hristian C onstantinian emperors was harsh and
strictly m aintained to the detrim ent of Jew ish religious and economic life. M any
other changes also occurred, caused by new adm inistrative divisions of the Land of
Israel. Civil and m ilitary rule were separated.
In 351 CE a Jew ish revolt in Sepphoris was organized against Galus, the R om an
governor in the East. It spread to all of the Galilee, and was suppressed by the
destruction of m any Galilean towns. Some of the m ajor cities, such as Tiberias, Sep­
phoris and Lod, were immediately resettled.
D uring the short rule of Ju lian (360-363 CE) Jew ish hopes were raised as he
showed intentions of perm itting them to rebuild Jerusalem and its Tem ple. This
prom pted enthusiastic Jews to resettle in Jerusalem . They built a synagogue near
the Tem ple M ount, and began collecting funds from all over the Jew ish world to
rebuild the Tem ple. M eanwhile, Ju lia n was m urdered, and with him went Jew ish
hopes.
At the end of the fourth and the beginning of the fifth centuries, as C hristianity
expanded, anti-Jewish legislation became even stricter, and Jew s suffered from
harsh treatm ent. The Patriarchy was term inated in this period (425 CE) and collec­
ting money for the Sanhedrin was prohibited. The Jerusalem T alm ud was com­
pleted at this time. The period of two hundred years from the beginning of the fifth
century until the beginning of the seventh century was a difficult one for the Jews
6 HISTORICAL· BACKGROUND

in the Land of Israel. Jew ish towns and villages diminished in size. Additional
legislation further harm ed Jew ish life: building new synagogues was prohibited,
although not actually enforced. However, within this period, the latter half of the
fifth century and the beginning of the sixth was a quieter and m ore relaxed period
for the Jews. T heir economy flourished, and agricultural settlements were estab­
lished in the south of the country. Synagogues were built and reconstructed, as well
as redecorated.
H ard times returned with the reign of Justinian I (527-565 CE),who renewed anti-
Jew ish legislation which discrim inated against Jew s and relegated them to an in­
ferior status. At the beginning of the seventh century, with the Persian victories over
the Byzantine empire in the east, the Jew s revived hopes of regaining their PART ONE
autonom ous rule, fired by strong M essianic hopes. The Persians conquered the
Galilee with Jew ish assistance, and, in 614 CE, conquered Jerusalem . Jews were al­ JE W IS H A R T A N D A R C H A E O L O G Y IN T H E SEC O N D T E M P L E P E R IO D
lowed to settle in Jerusalem and ruled there for three years. In 617 CE the Persians
returned to Jerusalem and the Jew s resisted them unsuccessfully. Heracles, the P art I consists of a survey of the art and archaeology of the Second Tem ple period.
Byzantine em peror, expelled them from Jerusalem and the decrees against the Jew s T he rem ains of the m onum ents discussed here belong to the H asm onean and H ero­
were further strengthened. M any Jews fled the country. dian periods, and are our source for the study of the architecture and art in those
In 640 CE the Land of Israel was conquered by the Arabs. By now the local periods. This survey will also deal with the Second Tem ple synagogue problem , as
Jew ish population had greatly dwindled in num ber. well as the burial customs practiced by Jews.
 CHAPTER ONE

A R C H IT E C T U R E

T he architecture of the Second Tem ple period begins with rem ains of H asm onean
architecture encountered in sites and structures which were later reconstructed or
completely renewed by the H erodian architectural projects. The only exceptional
structure with figurative art is found in cA raq el Em ir, northwest of H eshbon in
T ransjordan. H ere are the ruins of a temple or a palace, probably the castle of Tyre
m entioned by Josephus in Ant. X II. 233, and ascribed to the Tobiad dynasty in the
third century BCE. This palace has an entrance with a frieze of m onum ental lions
in profile, symmetrically facing the entrance (Avi-Yonah 1961b: 14). The H erodian
projects and renovations left a m ore enduring impression upon the art and architec­
ture of the period than those of the H asm oneans.

A) H a sm o n ea n A r c h it e c t u r e

H asm onean architecture survives mostly in rem ains found of fortifications, desert
fortresses, in funerary art, water systems and the recently excavated H asm onean
palace at Jericho. A part from this palace, most of the other H asm onean rem ains will
be discussed in the context of their later H erodian reconstructions and expansions.
T he architectural structures which exhibit features which could be related
specifically to the H asm oneans are the palaces.
T he characteristic features of the H asm onean palaces consist of a central court
surrounded by rooms. A hall with two columns in antis in the southern part of the
court led to the triclinium , and probably served as a reception hall.
This basic plan characterizes all the palaces at M asada, the twin palaces at Jericho
and was inspired by Hellenistic architecture (especially Priene—Y adin 1965: 47).
N etzer (1982b: 25) m aintains that the M asada palaces were built by the H asm o­
neans at the same time as they built their palaces at Jericho (see p. 45).

The Jericho Hasmonean Palace (N etzer 1975a, 1977, 1983)

T he beginning of the development of the Jericho valley was probably in the days
of Alexander Janneus, 103-76 BCE. Jericho was a garden city and royal estate, and
flourished during the first century BCE. T he H asm oneans were the first to build
10 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIO D
aqueducts in the western Jo rd a n Valley, one leading from the W adi Qelt springs,
and the second from the N acaran springs. Availability of w ater and land as well as
the mild climate enabled the development of agriculture including date palm and
balsam cultivation (Pliny N .H . 6.14; Strabo, Geog. 16.241; Josephus, War 1.6.6;
IV .8.3) which caused economic growth. T he above reasons brought about the
building of w inter palaces, first by the H asm oneans and later by H erod.
The Hasmonean Palace complex (fig. 1) was built at the outlet of W adi Qelt on a hill
overlooking the Jericho valley. T he fortressed central building(l) (50 x 50 m .) was
surrounded by a moat(2) on three sides. This m oat has been recently excavated. A
cistern brought water from the aqueduct to the palace. This building was later
covered by an artificial m ound constructed by H erod. The palace probably had a
central open court. A hall decorated with stucco and fresco was found in the excava­
tions. Rem ains of a storage hall were also found. The walls rem ain standing to a
height of seven metres, indicating that the palace was probably two storeys high.
Two small swimming pools(3) were probably surrounded by a peristyle-shaped
building which was decorated with fresco and mosaic floors. The drowning of
Aristobolos III, as described by Josephus in Ant. X V .53, m ay have occurred in one
of these pools. At the time of the building of the second aqueduct, another pair of
ARCH ITEC TURE 11
pools four m etres apart was constructed to the northwest of the central building
(13 x 18 m .)(4). T heir surrounding area was built with a court (60 x 70 m .) (5) serv­
ing as a garden, probably surrounded by columns which have not survived. South
of the pools and on the same axis, a splendid building, the “ pavilion,” was
erected(6). This was a 21 x 17 m etre-structure similar to a Doric temple. It probably
was destroyed by an earthquake and only its foundations, columns and architrave
survive. This complex probably served the inhabitants for reception and leisure p u r­
poses and had a magnificent view of the valley and W adi Qelt.
At a later period, the complex was extended to the south. Two “ tw in” palaces
were found(8) dated to the reign of Q ueen A lexandra (Shlom zion,76-67 BCE)
(N etzer 1983:103). Each measures 25 x 25 m ., has a central open court (9 x 10 m .)
surrounded by rooms, a hall, a bath house and a miqveh. The palaces were decorated
with frescoes. Each had an adjacent court with a small swimming pool(9). An addi­
tional swimming pool (20 x 12.5 m .) was built onto the eastern palace( 10). O ther
buildings, houses, installations and miqveh complexes were built around the palaces
probably needed in the purification rites of the priests. T he H asm onean palace com­
plex probably still stood at the beginning of H ero d ’s reign.
B) H e r o d ia n A r c h it e c t u r e
Com prehensive and m onum ental building projects were undertaken during
H ero d ’s reign, 37-4 BCE. The two sources of data relating to the H erodian con­
struction projects are literary and archaeological. The m ajor literary sources are to
be found in the works of Josephus Flavius, particularly A ntiquities X V -X V II and War
I, II and V. Extensive archaeological excavations undertaken during the last decades
add inform ation which is both com plem entary and contradictory to the literary
sources. Some of the archaeological finds are not m entioned in Josephus’ writings,
whereas some buildings are known to have existed only from the literary sources.
Josephus’ detailed descriptions are based on the structures in existence during his
lifetime, and are not m entioned according to their objective im portance and splen­
dour. Josephus m entions 33 building projects, twenty of which were within the
bordersLof H ero d ’s kingdom and thirteen of which were beyond its borders in other
countries. This list of H erodian architectural projects (see m ap 1) includes m ention
of the construction, reconstruction and extension of towns, fortifications, palaces,
and fortresses, as well as of the Tem ple in Jerusalem (on a raised platform of 36
acres), the largest single structure (the Royal Stoa), the largest palace (the 50-acre
palace at H erodium ), and one of the largest harbours ever constructed in antiquity
(at Caesarea). M any of these m onum ental structures have survived and have been
12 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIO D
excavated in the last decades, enabling us to determ ine the extensiveness and splen­
dour of H erodian architecture. M ost of these structures were built during H ero d ’s
reign, but renovations and reconstructions were undertaken during the first century
CE until the destruction of the Second Tem ple in 70 CE (see especially the extensive
studies done by Netzer, 1975a, 1977, 1981a, 1981b and 1983).
D uring the first century BCE the Land of Israel contained several towns or Greek
poleis, all of which were outside H e ro d ’s Jew ish kingdom and which accommodated
mostly Gentile citizens. The Jews generally resisted living in such a polis because
of pagan institutions which included theatres and gym nasia (Broshi 1981: 70-71).
In 30 BCE H erod received from Augustus several areas east and west of the Jo rd an .
These areas included foreign towns, such as G aza and its harbour. H erod built three
new towns: DA ntipatris, Caesarea with its m agnificent harbour and Sebaste
(Sam aria) with its temple of Augustus. In the newly-established towns H erod built
temples, palaces, theatres, stadia, fortifications and harbours. W ithin the Jew ish
kingdom H erod carried out several projects. H e built extensively in Jerusalem ,
particularly its Tem ple, a palace, town fortifications and towers, as well as m any
public buildings and institutions. In the Ju d e an desert H erod constructed or
renovated several splendid palace-fortresses: M asada, H erodium , Alexandrion (Sar-
taba), Cypros, M achaerus and the w inter palaces at Jericho (see m ap 1).
Two new towns were built by H ero d ’s sons: Tiberias was founded by H erod An-
tipas in 18 CE and Paneas, which was built by H erod, was extended by his son,
H erod Philipos. The H erodian building projects included public structures, private
buildings, and villas, as well as other structures such as palace-fortresses which in­
corporated within them m onum ental, m agnificent sections and utilitarian, func­
tional sections. The palace-fortresses in particular combined luxurious, leisurely
living with the need for security.
N etzer (1981b: 61) m aintains that H ero d ’s building projects were “ an expression
of the kings’s will and ability to build extensively...” H e asserts (1981b: 52-54) that
these projects involved innovative and original planning by K ing H erod as well as
a grandiose approach, indicated by the proportions of the huge podium and
m onum ental stones of the Tem ple M ount and its Royal Stoa, and in the H erodium
palace-fortress which was a m onum ental structure of fifty acres. Levine, (in N etzer
1981b: 63) in contrast to Netzer, contends that “ a gifted architect or even a team
of experts.. .determ ined the sites, designed the program and m ade the basic planning
decisions. ” H e m aintains that the king was certainly involved and followed the work
done, but did not take an active part.
AR CH ITEC TUR E 13
1. Characteristic Features of Herodian Architecture
H erodian architecture is characterized by the following features (see N etzer’s five
m ain principles of planning in the H erodian building complexes: 198la , 105-109;
1981b):
1) High-level planning reflected in the vast areas of the cities, such as Caesarea,
Sebaste and Jerusalem .
2) T he built-up area extended considerably and the creation of complexes contain­
ing buildings, open spaces, pools and gardens. Examples here include the complexes
of M asada, Jericho and G reater H erodium .
3) T he concept of a com m anding architectural focal point for each of these com­
plexes. Topographical locations with either natural or artificial focal points were
chosen. This concept is dem onstrated by the choice of sites: M asada is built on a
high rock in the desert; C aesarea stands by the sea shore; Jericho is a palace-complex
constructed on artificial m ounds on either side of W adi Qelt; H erodium is con­
structed as a palace-fortress surrounded by an artificial m ound, and the Tem ple in
Jerusalem is built on a site m uch higher than its surroundings and elevated by its
high retaining walls.
4) A variety of functional purposes creating a com bination of structures such as
a palace complex which integrated residence, adm inistrative, leisure and entertain­
m ent structures within it (the palaces at Jericho, M asada and H erodium ). A nother
example is the hippodrom e-theatre at Jericho which combines a race course for
chariots and horses with a theatre and a building at its short end.
5) Building techniques:
a) Use of simple and local materials: stone and sun-dried bricks.
b) Plastering of buildings’ exteriors and interiors with high-quality plaster. N etzer
(1981b: 58) notes that this plastering was considered highly aesthetic; he refutes the
generally-held notion that ashlar stone construction characterized H erodian struc­
tures (also Ben-Dov 1982: 96-99).
c) An im ported R om an m ethod of building was discovered in Jericho, palace III:
m ud-bricks were placed atop a foundation of rubble stones, were joined together
with cement and were covered with opus quadratum and opus reticulatum (Netzer 1975a:
PL 8a; 1977: 9).
d) Ashlar stones, used m ainly in the Tem ple retaining walls but also in palace
building. This was sometimes im itated in plaster in buildings such as “ The M an ­
sion” in the U pper City in Jerusalem (see Avigad 1983: figs. 87, 88). Ashlar stones
were a type of ornam ental m otif in Second Tem ple period art (see p. 81 and Hachlili
1985: 113, 124).
14 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIO D
e) Barrel-vaulting was employed for some instances of roofing (N etzer 1981b: 60).
6) An interesting feature of H erodian architecture is the nam ing of public and
private structures for H ero d ’s relatives and R om an patrons, as m entioned by
Josephus. H e nam ed H erodium for himself, ^Antipatris for his father and Cypros
is nam ed after his m other. T he three towers in Jerusalem , Phasael, M ariam m e and
H ippicus, are nam ed for, respectively, brother, wife and friend (War V. 161-175).
Cities and structures nam ed for R om an patrons include Caesarea, the Augustus
Tem ple at Sam aria, the A grippeum and Caesareum (two triclinia) in the Jerusalem
palace (nam ed for, respectively, M arcus Agrippa and Caesar Augustus), and the
A ntonia fortress at the northwest corner of the Tem ple M ount in Jerusalem .
7) Some features of H erodian architecture are unique and m ay have been innova­
tions originated by K ing H erod himself:
a) The building of the northern palace at M asada on the natural rock steps, and
the shaping of this palace’s middle terrace like a tholus (Yadin 1966: 59; N etzer
1981b: 53).
b) M ulti-storied towers at the Citadel and the A ntonia fortress in Jerusalem , and
at the H erodium palace-fortress (N etzer 1981a: 80-84, fig. 110).
c) A swimming pool within the Caesarea palace (Levine and Netzer 1978: 73-74).
d) Colonnaded streets at 3Antipatris (Kochavi 1981: 83-85), Caesarea (Bull 1982:
39-40), and Antioch in Syria, probably the first in the R om an world (Netzer 1981b:
79).
2. Sources of and influences upon Herodian Architecture
(see Netzer 1981b: 60; T safrir in N etzer 1981b: 70-72; Tsafrir 1982: 138-142)
1) T radition and inheritance from the H asm oneans.
a) In the case of M asada, other Ju d e an desert fortresses, and the Jericho W inter
Palace (figs. 10, 18, 20-22 and PI. 4.) H erod used building sites which had originally
been chosen and established by the H asm oneans for their palaces and fortresses. The
H asm oneans had founded all these buildings, and had been the first to construct for­
tresses and palaces in the desert, for political reasons as well as for leisure purposes,
as the Jericho W inter Palace (fig. 1, p. 10) and the western palace at M asada (fig.
19a, p. 43). H erod rebuilt and expanded most of these existing buildings.
b) Several architectural aspects of the H asm onean building projects show the in­
fluence on them of the surrounding Hellenistic cultures. These include the incor­
poration of swimming pools, gardens and pavilions in palaces; water installations;
and building techniques which employ local stone and barrel vaulting (in the Jericho
H asm onean palace). The western palace and the other small palaces at M asada and
the twin palaces at Jericho were constructed on the lines of Hellenistic prototypes.
ARCH ITEC TU RE 15
c) T he ornam entation of the buildings—wall fresco, stucco on walls, columns and
ceilings, and mosaic pavem ents—was influenced by that found in the principal con­
tem porary Hellenistic centres such as Alexandria and Antioch. Such ornam entation
techniques were employed in H asm onean architecture and were later continued in
H erodian structures.
2) T he influence of R om an architecture upon H erodian buildings:
a) H erod’s projects followed imperial R om an models for temples, theatres, hip­
podromes, palaces, aqueducts and bath houses. Similar projects were built in the
R om an Em pire for the same religious, cultural, political and economic reasons.
b) Building plans: incorporation of triclinia, peristyle courts and gardens, bath
houses and pools. H erod’s palaces are somewhat similar to the “ dom us” type of
house found in towns, and to villas (N etzer 1981a: 109-110).
c) R om an building technology was commonly used. Domes, arches and vaults,
aqueducts, bridges and staircases were employed in most H erodian projects in the
Jerusalem Tem ple, and the palaces of H erodium , Jericho and M asada. A transient
technological phenom enon should be considered here, that of the use of opus
reticulatum and opus quadratum in several H erodian structures. These are found in the
T hird W inter Palace at Jericho, at a building in Banias, and in a circular building
near the present-day Dam ascus Gate in Jerusalem , and were executed by builders
who came from Italy (Netzer 1981b: 60; 1983: 108).
3. Herod's Major Building Projects (map 1)
H ero d ’s extensive architectural projects were conducted prim arily in his capital
city of Jerusalem (fig. 2), the most prom inent and im portant of which was the T em ­
ple, probably the largest temple built in antiquity. H erod also built his chief palace
in Jerusalem . His life-style, copied from the style fashionable in im perial Rom e,
drove him to build m any m ore complexes; the palaces-fortresses at M asada and
H erodium were splendid and colossal constructions. T he H erodium palace, due to
its size, prom inent location and detailed planning, was probably m eant to be
H ero d ’s m ajor sum m er palace. M asada was his m ajor desert fortress and winter
palace. At Jericho H erod built three w inter palaces, presum ably to serve his family
and court for residence, entertainm ent and leisure.
H ero d ’s most famous building projects, for which excavations provide ample
evidence, are:
T he Tem ple M ount in Jerusalem .
T he palace-fortress of M asada.
T he palace-fortress of H erodium , and Lower H erodium .
T he three winter palaces at Jericho, and the H ippodrom e.
Caesarea M aritim a and its harbour.
16 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIO D ARCH ITEC TU RE 17

2. Jerusalem in the Second T em ple Period.

a) The Temple in Jerusalem

(Jeremias 1969: ; Safrai 1976: 870-907; Schürer et al 1979, II: 237-309).
T he Tem ple in Jerusalem has been the spiritual focal point of Jew ish national life
throughout the ages. It was the centre, furtherm ore, for the religious, political and
artistic innovations of Judaism . D uring periods of pilgrim age, the gathering of

M ap 1. H er o d ’s bu ild in g projects.
 18 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIO D
thousands of pilgrims in Jerusalem influenced the economic and social life of the
city. National and religious fervour, as well as resentm ent against R om an rule,
could be kindled and m anipulated by sages, prophets or others with a message, who
found ready and ardent audiences. Pilgrims would also use the public institutions
during their stay in Jerusalem .
In order to understand the Tem ple complex, it is necessary to first survey the w or­
ship conducted there.
Daily worship in the Tem ple consisted of:
1) The whole-offering of two lambs, one in the m orning and one in the afternoon,
which opened and concluded the d ay’s worship.
2) Between the daily whole-offerings, two further kinds of offerings were
sacrificed. O ne was the obligatory sin- and guilt- and purification-offerings for m en
and women. The second was free-will offerings, consisting of burnt-, peace‫־‬, thanks-
and various meal-offerings.
3) An additional offering was sacrificed after the m orning whole-offering on feast
days, new moons and Sabbaths.
4) R eading of the T orah and prayers were added during the Second Tem ple
period.
All the daily sacrifices and feast sacrifices were accom panied by music and singing,
which began and ended with the sounding of two trum pets by the priests.
T he worshippers came to the Tem ple in order to 1) participate in the Tem ple w or­
ship; 2) offer the first fruits, tithes and obligatory offerings; 3) study the Torah; and
4) cleanse themselves after various im purities, such as contam ination by contact
with the dead. W om en also participated in Tem ple worship. They brought the
peace-offering meals and participated in rejoicing, and were obliged to bring offer­
ings after childbirth. Gentiles also m ade offerings and pilgrimage to the Tem ple.
The Pilgrimage
Pilgrimage from throughout the Land of Israel and the D iaspora to the Tem ple
in Jerusalem was m ade on three Feasts: Passover (.Pesach), Pentecost (,Shavuoth) and
Tabernacles (Sukkoth). T he obligation of pilgrimage did not necessarily have to be
undertaken three times a year; it could be undertaken once a year, once in several
years or even once in a lifetime. M ost probably, of the thousands who m ade the
pilgrimage on each Feast, most came from nearby Judea. Although scholars have
m ade attem pts to calculate the num ber of pilgrims, they have never succeeded. The
obligation of the pilgrims to appear in the Tem ple to celebrate and rejoice in the
Feast actually m eant a sacrifice for each obligation (burnt and peace-offerings).
ARCH ITEC TUR E 19
The Temple offices
Tem ple worship was conducted by the priests who were the politically and socially
predom inant class. They were assisted by the Levites and the Israelites.
The Priests
T he priests constituted a closed circle of privileged families, and were divided into
twenty-four courses. Each course served for one week at a time, twice a year, and
each had its own organization. M ost priests did not live in Jerusalem ; they resided
in towns (Luria 1973) such as Jericho and Sepphoris, and went up to Jerusalem only
for their Tem ple service, during which time they slept within the Tem ple precincts.
T he ritual was conducted by priests who alternated each week, and whose func­
tions included comm unal and individual offerings and sacrifices, burning incense,
tending to the m enorah in the sanctuary, participating in some rites with the Levites
and sounding the two trum pets at the start and conclusion to the daily singing. They
were the only ones who had access to the altar and to the sanctuary.
The High Priest
T he High Priest stood at the head of the Tem ple hierarchy and had a unique
privileged status. H e did not serve on a daily basis, although a daily cake-offering
which was part of the whole-offering was sacrificed in his nam e. O n the Day of
A tonem ent, the H igh Priest entered the Holy of Holies in order to burn incense.
H e also participated in the rites and worship on festivals and on Sabbaths.
The Prefect
T he prefect was second-in-command to the H igh Priest whom he accompanied
during the rites. The prefect presided over the daily whole-offering.
The Levites
T he Levites were a circle of families divided into twenty-four courses which each
served in the Tem ple one week at a time, twice a year. They were singers and
gatekeepers. T heir duties included opening and closing gates, guarding the Tem ple
precinct by day and night, supervising the Tem ple cleanliness and m aking certain
that no unclean worshippers should enter. The Tem ple guard was conducted by
watches stationed in twenty-four locations.
The Israelites
T he Israelites consisted of deputations, based on the geographical constitution of
twenty-four districts. They were m en who stood beside the priests during the rites
and sacrifices, and later gathered for daily T orah reading and prayer.
20 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIO D ARCH ITEC TU RE 21

The Temple Treasury

All adult males had to contribute a half-shekel per year to the Tem ple. W om en
were not obliged to donate but probably also contributed. T he contribution was
given on the first day of the m onth of Adar, so that it could be used in Nisan, the
first m onth of the year. It was collected throughout the Land of Israel and the
D iaspora and sent to Jerusalem .
T he Tem ple revenues consisted of fixed contributions derived from the half-shekel
donation. However, other contributions were also sent by Jew s and Gentiles, and
included dedicatory donations for houses, servants or fields. The treasury financed
the expenses of the Tem ple m aintainance, as well as the com m unal needs of
Jerusalem .

The Temple Structure (Avi-Yonah 1956; M azar 1975b; Ben-Dov 1982)

L iterary sources describe the history of the Tem ple and detail its construction:
Josephus Flavius’ Antiquities (X V , 38-425) and W ar(V , 184-227), several references
in the Mishna (Middoth and Tamid), and some references in the New Testam ent ,Kindling
G ate of
Firstlings
w a te r G ate
(M ark 13:1; Luke 21:5) are the most helpful. Archaeological excavations, particu­ A ‫ ־*־‬Salt Chamber F ‫ =־‬Chamber of the Hearth I ‫»־‬ Chamber of Hewn Stone
G Chamber of Pinehas, the J ‫־‬ House of Abtinas
larly the most recent around the Tem ple M ount, provide proof and reaffirm literary B ‫ ־‬Rinsing Chamber
C *‫ ־־־־‬Porwah Chamber Keeper of Vestments K ‫־־־־‬ Goteh Chamber
sources for a reconstruction of the Second Tem ple structure. 1> ‫ ־־־־‬Offering Gate H ‫ ־‬Chamber of Makers of Baked I* ‫*־־־‬ Chamber of Wood
K -■■■
■■ Gate of the Flame Cake« M ‫*־־‬ Holy of Hoiks
T he building of the Tem ple by H erod probably began in the years 20-19 BCE,
and officially took nearly ten years to complete, but most likely building continued 3 a. Plan o f the Second T em ple.
for m any m ore years until 62-64 C E (Ant. X V , 380-402, 420-421; X X , 219; War
1 ,4 0 8 ). 144,000 sq. m. The dimensions of its retaining walls, which survive to the height
T he plan of the Tem ple consisted of a rectangular temenos, surrounded on all four of about 30 m. above the paved streets, are: north side: 315 m .; south side: 280 m .;
sides by porticos (fig. 2). The inner Tem ple was erected in the centre, close to the west side: 485 m .; and east side: 460 m. At the corners of the M ount towers were
western porticos (fig. 3 and PI. 1). T he construction involved tens of thousands of erected 30 m. above the paved streets.
selected and trained builders, craftsm en and stone masons. O ne thousand priests A flat, oblong platform was built around the Tem ple M ount by quarrying and
were trained to work in the Tem ple building. H erod originally had organized the filling the surrounding valleys, and by adding a vaulted sub-structure (now known
work force and m aterials in order to renovate the earlier Tem ple. After preparations as “ Solomon’s Stables” ) to the southeastern part of the M ount. T he retaining walls
had been m ade, the earlier Tem ple was destroyed and a new one was erected on its of the Tem ple temenos and precinct are formidable. Excavations in the last decades
site by the H erodian builders (B. zebahim 62a; Ant. X V , 390-391). H ero d ’s renova­ have revealed these well-preserved walls, particularly on the south and on the east.
tions included doubling the size of the M ount by the addition of a platform and re­ T he retaining walls were constructed with huge ashlar stones with the technique of
taining walls and building porticos and bridges. T he height of the Tem ple itself was “ dry m asonry.” Several stones are as long as twelve m etres and weigh as m uch as
raised by forty cubits. T he facade and ornam entation were new. 400 tons (Ben-Dov 1982: 88). The southern part of the western wall is known today
The Temple Mount itself is a trapezoid-shaped m ountain crest. as the “ W ailing W all.” T he upper parts of the western and southern walls were
T he M ount is bordered on the east by the K idron Valley, and on the west by the decorated with a row of projecting pilasters (fig. 4), similar to the ones on the Tom b
Tyropoeon Valley (fig. 2). Its highest point is in the north and its total area is of the Patriarchs in H ebron. A rchitectural fragm ents of these pilasters have been
24 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIO D ARCH ITEC TUR E 25

found in the excavations. An im portant find is the stone inscribed in Hebrew: “ To

the place of trum peting.” This stone had fallen into the street, and was probably ANTONIA tadi gate
located originally at the southwestern corner of the upperm ost wall, m arking the
spot where the priest blew his trum pet every Friday evening to m ark the beginning
of Sabbath (War IV , 582) (M azar 1975b: 35, 138; Ben-Dov 1982: 93-96; but see
Demsky 1985).
O n the Tem ple M ount several huge stone pavem ents can be observed today in
the area of the Dome of the Rock and Aqsa mosque, and were probably part of a
huge paved plaza (Ben-Dov 1982: 100-103).
The Tem ple M ount possessed both an inner and an outer court (War, V, 192-
193). The M ishna records (Middoth 2:1) only the inner court, and gives the m easure­
m ent of the Tem ple M ount as 500 x 500 cubits (ca. 250 x 250 m .). The court was
S U S A GATE
surrounded by porticos of two rows of columns on three sides. ‫״‬m i‫ ״‬nvv?
‫ ״‬W A R R E N 'S
The Royal Stoa, a m agnificent basilica-type structure, was built along the entire G ATE‫״‬
length of the southern wall (Ant. X V , 411-412). Fragm ents of this structure which
were found toppled down during the course of the excavations are ornam ented by
geometric and floral motifs (M azar 1975: 25). T he Royal Stoa served as an assembly
hall before, during and after the Tem ple services.
‫שער יזי פונ מ ס‬
CO PO N IU S GATE
‫® ה כו ת ל הס ערבי‬
The Temple WA I L I NG WALL

The reconstruction of the Tem ple itself has been m ade by various scholars, based
-‫בסילילך‬
solely on literary sources (fig. 3 and PI. 1). No archaeological rem ains of it have been
found. The Tem ple has been reconstructed in m iniature by Prof. Avi-Yonah on the
grounds of the Holy Land Hotel in Jerusalem (PI. 1; fig. 5). The description below
follows his reconstruction:
T he T em ple’s inner and outer Courts were separated by a screen (soreg) bearing 5. Plan o f the T em p le M ount.

an inscription w arning Gentiles from entering the inner court (Ben-Dov 1982: fig.
on p. 102). Beyond this screen a flight of either twelve or fourteen steps which sur­
rounded the Tem ple led up to a ram part (hel) separate from the Tem ple inner walls.
This wall was a fortress with gates and towers (figs. 3, 5). War, V , 198-200; Ant.
X V , 418 and the M ishna (Middoth 1, 3) m ention seven and ten gates (Avi-Yonah
1956: 408-409). The Tem ple was divided into three parts (fig. 3): 1) the outer,
W om en’s C ourt; 2) the inner C ourt of the priests and the C ourt of the Israelites;
and 3) the Tem ple Sanctuary.
1) The Outer, Women’s Court (135 x 135 cubits) (fig. 5). This was so nam ed because
wom en were allowed to enter only as far as this court and no further. It served for
com m unal ritual functions (Safrai 1976: 866). Four corner “ cham bers,” 4 0 x 4 0
cubits each, were erected in this court: the W ood, Nazirites, Oil and Lepers
cham bers, each with its own ritual bath serving for purification. The W om en’s
C ourt was surrounded by porticos and galleries where women assisted in several of
the ceremonies.
The Nicanor Gate (figs. 3, 6) was built on the west wall of the court leading into
the Israelites’ Court. T he gate, nam ed after an Alexandrian Jew who donated the
bronze doors, was approached by fifteen curved steps on which the Levites would
sit while playing instrum ents and singing.
26 JEW ISH ART A ND ARCHAEOLOGY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIOD AR CH ITEC TU RE 27

7b. T h e D u ra Europos fresco.

6. R econstruction o f the N icanor G ate.

2) The Second Court was divided into two parts:

a) The long and narrow C ourt of Israelites (135 x 11 cubits) ran along the eastern
side of the inner C ourt. In this court m en who brought sacrifices could watch the
rites perform ed in the C ourt of the Priests. O n either side of the inner section of the
N icanor Gate was a cham ber, one the C ham ber of Pinhas, the Keeper of the
Vestm ents, and the other the C ham ber of the M akers of the Cakes (M. Middoth 1:4).
b) The C ourt of the Priests (187 x 135 cubits) was surrounded by porticoes, with
gates. Colonnades with decorated columns (M . Tamid 1:3; War V, 200) housed
several chambers which all protruded into the court. T he C ham ber of the Hewn
Stone was the seat of the Sanhédrin. The House of the H earth was used as the centre
of the priests on duty in the Tem ple . The House of Abtinas served for the prepara­
tion of incense. Inside this court were two most im portant structures: the Slaughter
House and the Altar, which were erected in front of the sanctuary. The A ltar (30
cubits square) was m ade of stones untooled by iron chisels. This altar was ap­
proached by a ram p, and both were whitewashed twice a year. The House of
Slaughter was divided into three parts, each of four cubits, containing the m arble
tables, low pillars and the rings.
3) The Temple Sanctuary was 100 cubits in width along the front and 70 cubits in
most of its length. It was “ shaped like a lion, broad in front and narrow behind”
7a. R econstruction o f the T em ple facade. 7c. T h e Bar K okhba C oin.
(M. Middoth 4:7). The portal of the Tem ple was flanked by four engaged columns
standing in two pairs (fig. 7a), which have been reconstructed on the basis of the
coins of Bar Kokhba (fig. 7c) and the D ura Europos synagogue fresco (fig. 7b). A
golden eagle was hung above the portal ( War I, 650-656; Ant. X V II, 149-163). The
doorway was covered by a large curtain and twelve steps led up to the sanctuary.
T he Tem ple was divided into three parts:
a) The porch, 70 x 11 cubits, had two flanking rooms, each 15 cubits wide.
b) The sanctuary (40 x 20 cubits), access to which was gained through two outer
and inner doors, had two walls covered in gold foil. It housed the sacred golden
vessels: the m enorah, the shewbread table, the altar of incense. The position of these
28 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIO D ARCH ITEC TURE 29
!
vessels is disputed; they were either placed from north to south (jB. Yoma 51b-52a),
or from west to east (.M . Menachoth 11:6, cf. War V, 216-217).
c) The Holy of Holies (20 x 20 cubits) occupied the western part of the Tem ple,
and its entrance was through two curtains. It was impossible to see into the Holy
of Holies. T he Second Tem ple Holy of Holies contained no objects, whereas that
of the Solomonic Tem ple contained the Ark of the Covenant. The H igh Priest alone
was allowed to enter once a year on the Day of Atonem ent.
T he archaeological excavations carried out during the course of a decade (1968-
1978) (PI. 2) have resulted in im portant data being disclosed concerning the areas
of the Tem ple M ount gates and the areas outside the west, south and east retaining
walls. Streets, squares and m onum ental passageways have been uncovered (M azar
1975a: 25-30; 1975b: 111-152; Ben-Dov 1982: 105-133).

The Gates of the Temple Mount (Figs. 2, 3, 4)(B en D o v 1982: 135-146; 1983: 134-153)
Josephus describes four gates on the west wall which led into the Tem ple M ount.
By comparison, the M ishna, (Middoth I, 3) describes five gates: the two H ulda Gates
on the south, the Coponius Gate on the west, the T adi Gate on the north, and the
Susa Gate on the east. O n the west, as revealed by the archaeological excavations,
four gates led into the Tem ple M ount. Two of these gates, which were situated
above the m onum ental bridge-stairways and whose rem ains are known today as
R obinson’s Arch and W ilson’s Arch (figs. 8a, 5), probably led to the Royal Stoa and
other public buildings on the M ount. T hrough them ran the western (Tyropoeon)
street. T he other two gates are known today as Barclay’s Gate (figs. 8a, 4), situated
between the Robinson and W ilson arches, which can probably be identified with the
Coponius Gate through which it is assumed the Gentiles entered the Tem ple M ount
(Ben-Dov 1982: 142; 1983: 141-143, 154), and W arren ’s Gate, north of W ilson’s
Arch (figs. 8a, 2) (Ben-Dov 1983: 144).
O n the south were the two H ulda Gates, separated from each other by a distance
of 70 m etres, the eastern of which (the Triple Gate) was the m ain entrance which
led into the Tem ple M ount, and the western of which (the Double Gate) led out of
the Tem ple M ount (figs. 4, 9) (Ben-Dov 1982: 140-141; 1983: 134-140). These gates
were decorated with ornam ented domes (figs. 9a, I I .7 and PI. 9), and were nam ed for
the prophetess H ulda, who, according to tradition, is buried nearby (but see Ben-
Dov 1982: 136). As these were the m ain gates to the Tem ple M ount it is safe to
assume that the southern side was the entrance of the Tem ple M ount. Two other
gates are m entioned, b ut have not been found: the T adi Gate on the north (M. M id­
doth 1:3), and the Susa Gate on the east, so called due to the depiction of the town
of Susa on it. A nother gate has been found above the eastern passageway; it was a

8b. T h e Eastern G ate o f the T em ple M ou n t.

 ARCHITECTURE 31
30 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIO D

double gate that led to the vaults under the temenos, probably to the store rooms (fig.
8b; Ben-Dov 1983: 151-152).

Arches and Interchanges

Arches and interchanges protruding from the Tem ple M ount have been u n ­
covered. Three arches, two on the western wall and one on the eastern wall, were
employed as interchanges:
1) R obinson’s Arch protruded from the western wall, close to the south-western
corner (fig. 4). Its width was 15.20 m. and its length was m ore than one hundred
metres. The diam eter of the arch was 13 metres. It rested upon a pier built at a
distance of 13 metres from the western wall. A series of smaller piers continued
southwards, forming seven progressively smaller arches which together formed a
m onum ental interchange leading from the street up to R obinson’s Arch and the en­
trance above it, and probably to the Royal Stoa on the Tem ple M ount (figs. 4, 8a)
(M azar 1975a:25-26; Ben-Dov 1982:126-133).
2) W ilson’s Arch protruded from the western wall, north of R obinson’s Arch (fig.
9). It was also fifteen m etres wide and thirteen m etres in diam eter. Ben-Dov (1982:
123) reconstructs W ilson’s Arch and passageway identically to R obinson’s Arch. He
relies on the following facts: the U pper City buildings found in the excavations reach
as far as the eastern pier of W ilson’s Arch; thus no series of arches could have been
constructed towards the east (see, on the other hand, M azar 1975: fig. on 26-27).
W ilson’s Arch seen today in situ is a m uch later arch, probably Islamic in date. The
original H erodian arch stones were found fallen onto the Second Tem ple period
street (Ben-Dov 1982: 130; 1983: 147-149).
3) The eastern arch (fig. 8b), similar to the others, was also part of the inter­
change. It protruded from the eastern wall, close to the southeastern corner. It was
smaller than the others, being only seven m etres in both width and length. U nder
it ran the “ Eastern R o ad ” along the eastern wall. This eastern interchange, accord­
ing to Ben-Dov (1982: 116) probably led from the street into the vaults which served
!□ !□ !□ iD ianappaaac as store rooms, under the Tem ple M ount.

Streets and Squares

Streets and squares were found in the excavations. Three of the four streets found
ran along the Tem ple M ount walls, and two ran under the arches and interchanges.
1) A wide street (10 m .), paved with large stones, was flanked by small buildings
which were probably shops. O n the west they abutted the western retaining wall.
T he street ran under R obinson’s Arch and W ilson’s Arch (figs. 4, 8). It probably
carried a large flight of steps leading from the Tyropoeon Valley through an en-

9a-c H uldah G ates, Jerusalem .

32 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIOD
trance to the Royal Stoa. T he pillar of R obinson’s Arch (as well as W ilson’s Arch)
was also built with four shops inside it, and inside these the excavators found coins,
stone vessels and weights. The area was probably a commercial section (fig. 4) (Ben-
Dov 1982: 113-114, photo on p. 108).
2) A second street found during the excavations was the one which wound north
of R obinson’s Arch towards the U pper City. This street was built on vaults which
housed an extensive drainage system and connected the Tem ple M ount to the U p ­
per City (Ben-Dov 1982: 115)
3) Along the southern retaining wall, another street, paved with slabs, was
reached by stairs (fig. 4), some of which were built on vaults along the eastern part
of the street. The street runs adjacent to the H ulda Gates. N ear the Double Gates
a m onum ental stairway was found (figs. 4, 9 and PI. 3), about 64 m. in width
(M azar 1975a: 30). A plaza paved with flagstones was found 6.50 m. south of this
stairway.
4) A fourth street ran along the eastern Tem ple M ount wall. It m ust have
been narrow er, because the eastern arch is m uch smaller (Ben-Dov 1982: 115-
116).
H ero d ’s Tem ple in Jerusalem is the largest known temple in antiquity. O ne of
the architectural wonders of the ancient world, and a unique structure, it m ust have
m ade a m agnificent impression on visitors. The Tem ple was the focal point for the
Jew ish nation, the centre for worship and the place where political, economic and
spiritual affairs of world Jew ry could be discussed and determ ined. It was also the
destination for pilgrims during the Feasts, and therefore needed to accommodate
thousands of people who gathered there to celebrate. O ne of the m ajor reasons
behind the enorm ity of the H erodian Tem ple building project was in order to meet
this exigency.
b) Herodian Palaces
K ing H ero d ’s reign is rem arkable, in the architectural sphere, for the m any
m onum ental edifices either renovated or newly-built in both towns and fortresses.
H erod especially concerned himself with building palaces which could be used for
both adm inistrative as well as for recreational purposes. In order to exploit the
climatic differences as well as the strategic features between the various areas under
his control, he built both fortresses, and w inter and sum m er palaces. The Ju d ean
desert and the Jericho Valley, where his w inter palaces of M asada, Jericho and
Cypros were situated, as now, had ideal, tem perate w inter climates but were in­
ARCH ITEC TU RE 33
conveniently hot in summ er. Furtherm ore, the isolated and easily defendable rock
upon which M asada is built provided excellent conditions for a fortress-palace. The
high altitude and proxim ity to Jerusalem of H erodium , and the nearby sea at
Caesarea, both assured pleasant climates for his sum m er palaces. Two additional
palaces, probably for sum m er use, are m entioned by Josephus but have not yet been
positively identified: ‫*־‬Ascalon (Ant. X II, 321; War II, 98); and Sepphoris {Ant.
X V II, 271; War II, 56). (Excavations at these two sites began in the sum m er of
1985.)
Typical Features of the Plans of Herodian Palaces
These features followed the common plans of the R om an “ dom us” and “ villa”
(town and country house respectively). A H erodian palace was usually an elaborate
building with several wings:
1) T he m ain wing contained:
a) The triclinium . This was a prom inent feature consisting of a large hall with
three rows of columns parallel to three walls and a wide entrance open to the land­
scape or an inner court.
b) A peristyle court, with rows of columns and double columns in its corners.
c) An inner garden.
d) A bath house.
e) Dwelling rooms.
2) T he extended palace complex usually also included entertainm ent facilities:
a) Pools for swimming and sailing boats.
b) Elaborate gardens, such as the sunken garden at Jericho, palace III.
c) W ater installations, such as aqueducts and channels, to bring water to the pools
and gardens, as well as to the residential wings.
Herod’s Palace in Jerusalem
Josephus describes H erod’s magnificent palace which was situated close to three
towers in the area of the present-day Citadel ( War V, 176-182). Josephus’ descrip­
tion of the Jerusalem palace is substantiated by the Jericho palaces which contain
architectural features such as triclinia and gardens which are m entioned as having
existed in the Jerusalem palace (p. 36). Archaeological excavations conducted
south of the present-day Citadel (D avid’s Tower) have revealed rem ains of this
palace (Bahat and Broshi 1975). From the citadel in the north it was built on a raised
platform which extended over 300-350 m. north-south and at least 60 m. west-east.
No superstructure of the palace has been found and only supporting walls have sur­
34 JEW ISH ART A N D ARCH AEOLOGY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIO D ARCH ITEC TU RE 35

vived. The palace in Jerusalem was H ero d ’s chief palace and was probably in use
throughout the year.

Jericho— Three Herodian Winter Palaces (fig. 10) (N etzer 1975a, 1977, 1983)
1) Winter Palace I (“ G ym nasium ” ) (fig. 10(b))
This palace, which served for residential and ceremonial purposes, is dated to the
early years of H ero d ’s reign, following his defeat of M attathias Antigonus in about
35-30 BCE. At that tim e, Cleopatra was given the Jericho valley by her lover M ark
Anthony; H erod rented from her the date palm and balsam plantations. At this time
the H asm onean palace north of W adi Qelt was still extant. The H erodian palace,
a splendid villa, was built south of W adi Qelt (fig. 10b). It was, in plan, a rec­
tangular building (46 x 86 m .) with a central peristyle court (35 x 42 m .), a
triclinium , a peristyle hall (12.50 x 18.50 m .), a bath house, and a pair of pools
which m ay have served as a ritual bath (miqveh:).

2) Winter Palace I I (figs. 10(c); 11)

In 31 BCE an earthquake destroyed the H asm onean palace complex. After the
Battle of Actium H erod succeeded in regaining control of the Jericho valley {Ant.
X V ). H e rebuilt and extended the palace complex which included several wings:
a) The south wing (1) was a small building erected over an artificial platform
under which the H asm onean palace was buried (fig. 11.1). It probably served as
H ero d ’s private residential villa (N etzer 1977:11; 1983: 106). O f the rem ains of the
H asm onean complex, the two pools were retained and now combined into one large
swimming pool (fig. 11.2) and another smaller pool (fig. 11.9), surrounded by
gardens.
b) G ardens were also planted (fig. 11) over the rem ains of the destroyed H asm o­
nean “ tw in” palaces.
c) T he eastern wing was constructed on two levels. O n the upper level a peristyle
court (5) was surrounded by rooms on three sides, and had a hall decorated with
frescoes (6). The lower level consisted of two swimming pools rem aining from the
H asm onean palace (7, 9) inside a peristyle court. Attached to these was a bath house 10. T h e W inter Palaces at Jericho: T h e H asm onean P alace.(a) H ero d ’s W inter Palace I..(b) H ero d ’s
(8). It seems that this wing served for recreational purposes. W inter Palace II.(c) H ero d ’s W inter Palace III.(d )

3) Winter Palace I I I , an enlarged palace (figs. 10(d); 12; 13). a sunken garden (2), a large pool (40 x 92 m .) (3) and an artifical m ound with a
At the end of each w inter, the W adi Qelt springs overflow, and the wadi becomes building (1) on the south bank of the wadi.
a river for a few weeks. H erod built his enlarged palace on both sides of W adi Qelt. a) T he “ N orthern W ing” (4) is constructed of m ud brick and concrete covered
It consisted of a “ northern w ing” (4) on the north bank of the wadi (fig. 12.4), and with opus reticulatum and opus quadratum (Netzer 1975: 93, PI. 8:A; 1977: 9, fig. 12).
36 JEW ISH ART A N D ARCHAEOLOGY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIOD ARCH ITEC TU RE 37

This wing contained two triclinia and one large hall (29 x 19 m .) (B70) with three
rows of columns open to the south to W adi Qelt. The hall was paved in opus sectile
stone slabs (N etzer 1975a:9, fig. 11). Also included in the northern wing was a five-
12. Jericho W inter Palace III C om plex.
room bath house (fig. 26c) which included a round frigidarium with four semicir­
cular niches and a caldarium similar to those at H erodium and at M asada (fig. 25a,
diam eter, and similar to the frigidarium . It m ay have been another triclinium . A
b). This wing also possessed two peristyle courts, the western of which had a wide
bridge connected the m ound with the garden (figs. 12; 13.). N etzer (1983: 110-112)
semicircular apse. Several other rooms as well as the entrance were also included in
also postulates the existence of a bridge above the W adi Qelt (fig. 13).
the northern wing, which probably served as a leisure area.
To sum up, Palace I (“ G ym nasium ” ) comprised H ero d ’s first residential struc­
b) The Sunken G arden (fig. 12) (2), which m easured 1 4 0 x 4 0 m., had an im ­
ture. Later, in palace complex II he built a smaller structure on an artificial platform
pressive facade containing a semicircular structure in its centre. O n both sides of this
which buried the previous H asm onean palace (fig 1), to serve as his private residen­
structure were 24 rows of niches. Two colonnades were located at either end.
tial villa. M ost of the w inter palace II complex (fig. 11) and all of the w inter palace
c) The Large Pool (fig. 12) (3), west of the sunken garden, was built on an orienta­
III complex (figs. 12; 13) served H erod and his court for recreational purposes.
tion different to that of all the other structures, probably because it is parallel to the
natural slope. It served for swimming and water games. Greater Herodium (N etzer 1981a)
d) The South M ound (fig. 12) (1) had a rectangular exterior and round interior. H erodium is 12 km. south of Jerusalem . H erod built the H erodium palace-
It probably was the foundation of a round cem ent-constructed hall, 16 m. in fortress, nam ed it after himself, and chose it as the site of his burial. Sources for this

j‫־‬
38 JEW ISH ART A ND ARCH AEOLOGY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIO D ARCH ITEC TU RE 39

13. R econstruction o f Jerich o W inter Palace III.

palace-fortress are the writings of Josephus (Ant. X IV , 359-360; X V , 323-325; War

I, 265, 419-421) and the extensive excavations carried out during the last decade.
G reater H erodium (fig. 14, PI. 5) consists of an upper m ountain palace-fortress (1)
and a lower area containing a building complex (3-13).

1) The Mountain Palace-Fortress (1) (fig. 15)

This palace was built on top of a hill and was the first building constructed at
H erodium (N etzer 1981a: 80-84, fig. 110). T he structure is built in the shape of a
cylinder of 63 m. in diam eter, and consists of two concentric circular walls with a
corridor (5) 3.5 m. wide between them (N etzer 1981a: 85-101, figs. 120, 130, 131).
A massive fill was added to the outside of this cylinder, creating a steep slope. Four
towers were built outside the cylinder walls, three of which are semicircular (2-4).
40 JEW ISH ART A ND ARCH AEOLOGY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIO D
The fourth, the eastern tower (1), was the tallest, and was probably a multi-storeyed
tower, similar to the three towers of Jerusalem . T he structure was five-six storeys
high and contained rooms.
N etzer (1981a: 100-101) asserts that the prototype for the H erodium palace-
fortress was the A ntonia fortress in Jerusalem . H erodium is similar in design except
that it is circular in plan.
A steep stairway, partly a tunnel quarried in the m ountain, was built directly up
to the palace. W ithin the encircling fortress walls and towers H erod built a palace,
as a residential villa, which is divided into eastern and western wings:
a) T he eastern wing (a) has a peristyle courtyard with semicircular niches at either
end, and probably served as a garden.
b) The western wing contained the living quarters consisting of rooms surroun­
ding a central courtyard (b). South of this courtyard is the triclinium (15) (later a
synagogue, p. 84). N orth of the courtyard is the bath house with its caldarium (29)
similar to those at M asada and Jericho, and its tepidarium (28) which was a circular
room (see also p. 57, fig. 26b).
ARCH ITEC TURE 41
2) Lower Herodium (fig. 14)
Below the m ountain palace-fortress and at the foot of the m ountain, rem ains of
structures have been uncovered in recent years by N etzer (1981a: 10-51).
a) The pool complex (11) (fig. 14) was the architectural focus of Lower H erodium
and m ust have been an outstanding feature. Surrounded by formal gardens, its cen­
tre contained a circular colonnaded pavilion (N etzer 1981a: 28-30, fig. 47). T he pool
served for swimming, sailing boats, and as a water reservoir.
b) The large central palace (3-5) (fig. 14) was built on an elevated platform , and
served as a palace for H erod and his court.
c) The course (6), 350 m. long and 25 m. wide, was almost level. At its western
end stand the rem ains of a m onum ental building (7) which is connected to the
course.
d) The m onum ental building (7) (fig. 14) is massive, m easuring 14.9 x 14 m. and
containing a hall with niches, once covered by frescoes. This building m ay have
formed part of a burial complex, with the course serving as a “ funeral course”
(Netzer 1981a: 33-45).
e) The northern wing (fig. 14.13) consists of several buildings which probably
served as dwellings for H ero d ’s family and court, as service wings or as residences
for the adm inistrative staff (N etzer 1981a: 45-51).
f) The aqueduct built by H erod brought water from U rtas to the Lower H erodium
complex.
Masada (Yadin 1965, 1966)
Eight palaces were found at M asada in the northern and western parts of the rock
m ountain (fig. 16; PL 4). The two m ain palaces are: 1) the N orthern Palace or
palace-villa; and 2) the W estern Palace or the ceremonial and adm inistrative palace.
Several smaller palaces were also uncovered: 3) a group of three small palaces serv­
ing the royal family (33, 34, 26 = X I, X II, X III) (fig. 19); and 4) a further group
of palaces which served as residences for high officials and as adm inistrative centres
(Palaces V II, IX , X I, X II; fig. 19).
1) The Northern Palace-villa (fig. 17)
This palace is a most unusual structure which utilized the rock cliff in a unique
m anner. The palace, consisting of three terraces, one above the other, is built on
the northern edge of the rock. The entrance was on the east side of the upper terrace.
a) The upper terrace (III) consists of rooms along the sides of an open court, living
quarters and a semi circular balcony (porch) which probably had two rows of
columns.
42 JEW ISH ART A N D ARCHAEOLOGY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIO D

16. P lan o f M asada.

b) T he middle terrace (II) is about twenty m etres beneath the upper terrace and
consists of a circular pavilion structure. T he foundation of this building has survived
and consists of an outer and inner wall. The space between the two walls is filled
with stones. This structure was a type of tholus with two rows of columns. South
of the circular building was a staircase connecting the upper and middle terraces.
A large hall on the east is decorated with a colonnade, a “ false facade” and fresco
im itating m arble. The middle terrace served as a pavilion, a relaxation and leisure
area.
c) The lower terrace (I) is about fifteen m etres beneath the middle terrace. The
building measures 1 7 . 6 x 1 7 . 6 m . and is constructed on a raised area of supporting
walls. The central area is porticoed, (fig. 17) consisting of a double colonnade of
half-columns m ade of sandstone which are plastered with coloured C orinthian
capitals. The lower parts of the portico walls are decorated with m arble-im itative
fresco (fig. I I .3). Behind the porticoed area is a ‘‘false facade” wall, with half­
columns attached to the rock and fresco panels between them (fig. I I .3) (Yadin 1965:
PI. 3). O n the east is a small bath house, and on the west is a staircase leading from
the middle terrace to the lower terrace.
 ARCHITECTURE 43

This palace had only a few living rooms on the upper terrace and was intended
mostly for leisure.

2) The Western Palace (X) (fig. 18.X)

This is the largest am ong several sim ilarly-planned palaces at M asada. The plans
of the two groups 3) and 4) are quite similar and follow the plan of the western palace
apartm ent wing. Built close to the western gate (fig. 16), it is the largest of all the
palaces, occupying about four thousand square m etres, with a m ain entrance on the
north. The palace contains four parts: a) the southeast section containing the royal
apartm ents; b) the northeast service wing and workshop; c) the southwest
storerooms; and d) the northwest adm inistrative wing and residence for palace of­
ficials.
a) The royal apartm ents are built around a central court. A hall is located in the
m iddle of the southern part and two Ionic columns in the north side m ark the open­
ing into the court. T hree entrances from this hall lead into a throne room. O ne of
the eastern rooms of the royal apartm ents contains a mosaic floor (PI. 7a). N orth
of the court is the bath house, ritual bath and other installations. The floors here
are also paved with mosaics (PI. 7b). This wing probably had several storeys, and
is similar in plan to the twin H asm onean palaces at Jericho (fig. 19) (N etzer 1982b:
25).
b) The service wing and workshops are built around a court. T he north side con­
tained dwelling rooms whereas the rem aining rooms were workshops.
c) The storeroom wing consists of several long storerooms in the southwestern part
of the palace. A row of storerooms abuts the south wall of the royal apartm ent wing.
These rooms belong to the second stage of the palace buildings.
d) T he adm inistrative wing consists of three blocks of buildings. T he northern­
m ost of these served as the residence of the palace officials and is similar to the other
palaces of M asada.

3) Palaces XI, X I I and X I I I (figs. 16, 18)

These were erected close to the western palace. They each have a central court,
and a hall with two columns leading into another corner hall which was probably
a reception room. This room could also be entered through a small corridor or
waiting room.

4) Palaces VII and V III (figs. 16, 18)

These are close to the storeroom. They have the same general plan as the other
palaces. Building V II has a storeroom attached to it which probably contained
valuable commodities.
44 JEW ISH ART A N D ARCHAEOLOGY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIO D ARCH ITEC TURE 45

5) Building I X
This has a different plan (figs. 16, 18). Its central court is surrounded by rooms
consisting of small units, each of which has two small rooms and a court. Three units
lie on three sides of the building. The east side contains two large halls and the m ain
entrance. This building probably served as a barracks for the guard.
rn
=r The M asada palaces differ in plan from the usual H erodian palaces of Jericho and
H erodium . They are characterized by a simple, central court, and by halls each with
two columns in antis, leading to a triclinium , usually in the southern part of the
court (fig. 18). They are closely related in plan to the twin buildings of the H asm o­
nean palace at Jericho (fig. 19) (N etzer 1982b: 23, 25). T he plan of the M asada
palaces follows basic elements of Hellenistic architecture (Yadin 1965: 47, note 37;
N etzer 1981a: 110). N etzer (1982b: 25) asserts that these differences in plans prove
rl - that the M asada palaces had been already built by the H asm oneans, and were only
_j ··£u expanded and improved by H erod. However, it is also possible that H erod, when
LZL building the M asada palaces, utilized a plan which had also been used earlier by the
H asm oneans.

18. T h e Palaces o f M asada.

c) Fortresses
Seven fortresses known to have been built in the Ju d e an desert, M asada,
H erodium , Cypros, H yrcania, A lexandrium , M achaerus and Doq, constitute an
im portant component of H erodian architecture. The fortresses were located in the
desert, within view of each other. They were isolated and autonom ous. Built on

N x m m ountain tops, they were strongly fortified, and had extensive systems for the en­
trapm ent and storage of water. They functioned prim arily as m ilitary bases for

H
lii ,J—
defence, but also as places of refuge for political and spiritual reasons, and as shelters
in times of violent confrontation and upheaval. The fortresses also served as ad­
m inistrative centres for im portant routes, agricultural and royal farm areas and
palaces; they also were used for guarding borders. They even served as burial places
both for the H asm oneans and for H erod. Elaborate palaces were constructed on
their premises. M asada was the most spacious of all and had several palaces on its
sum m it, which served as leisure resorts. The fortresses sometimes extended into the
lower areas of their m ountains; H erodium had buildings and installations built
below the m ount.
19. M asada, W estern Palace, R oyal W ing (a), and T w in Palace o f Jericho (b).
The history of the fortresses, known from literary sources as well as from a r­
chaeological excavations (Tsafrir 1982), begins in the H asm onean period. Three
fortresses (Alexandrium , H yrcania and M achaerus) are m entioned by Josephus
46 JEW ISH ART A ND ARCHAEOLOGY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIO D
{Ant. X III, 417; War V II, 166) as being related to the H asm oneans in about 69
BCE. This is attested to by their names: A lexandrium is probably nam ed after Alex­
ander Jannaeus (103-76 BCE) and H yrcania after Jo h n H yrcanus I (135-104 BCE).
The§e three fortresses played roles in the skirmishes and struggles between the
H asm onean kings and the Rom ans. In 57 BCE they were destroyed by the governor
Gabinius.
T he earliest m ention of M asada is from 42 BCE {Ant. X IV , 296; War I, 236-238);
H erod fled to M asada in 40 BCE, and it became his stronghold against the H asm o­
neans. The fortresses were also extensively used in the First W ar against the
Rom ans (66-73 CE), especially M asada, H erodium and M achaerus, which still
stood after the fall of Jerusalem (70 CE). The last H asm onean stronghold was H y r­
cania (War I, 364). U pon establishing his rule in about 30 BCE, H erod rebuilt and
refortified all the existing fortresses as well as building H erodium . Splendid palaces
were built within all fortresses. H e also used the fortresses as adm inistrative centres,
for executions and as burial places.
Masada (Yadin 1965) (fig. 16)
The fortress of M asada is built on the rock cliff about 25 kilometres south of cEn-
Gedi. The rock is rhom boid in shape, m easuring about 600 m. north-south and 300
m. east-west. The fortress itself is encircled by a casemate wall with four gates, thirty
towers and seventy rooms. The wall is built of local dolomite stone. T he gates’ plan
consists of a room with an outer and inner entrance, and benches along the walls.
T he towers are small casemates built according to the topography at unequal
distances.
O n the northern edge of the cliff stands the palace-villa. Next to it are the public
storehouses, bath house and additional palaces. O ther palaces were built on the
western part of the rock.
Herodium (fig. 14) (Corbo 1963, Netzer 1981a)
H erodium is a symmetrical, circular m ountain fortress built on a natural hill
south of Jerusalem . Two walls shaped as concentric circles enclose the structure, and
a fill is added between them . Four towers are added to the circular wall according
to the exact points of the compass. Three of the towers are semicircular. The eastern
tower is multi-storeyed and circular. Inside the fortress is built a palace. A further
palace and other buildings were uncovered in lower H erodium .
Alexandrium!Sartaba (fig. 20) (Tsafrir & M agen 1984)
Alexandrium was the northernm ost of the Ju d e an desert fortresses during the Sec­
ond Tem ple period. It had probably been built as a fortress in H asm onean times,
AR CH ITEC TUR E 47
and nam ed after either Alexander Janneus or his wife Salome A lexandra (first half
of the first century BCE). The H asm onean fortress was destroyed by G abinius in
57 BCE, and was later rebuilt on a m ore elaborate scale by H erod.
According to Josephus, H erod left his wife M ariam m e and her m other in custody
at Alexandrium in 30 BCE. In 15 BCE M arcus A grippa was H ero d ’s guest there.
After H erod m urdered his two sons, they were buried in the H asm onean dynasty
tom b at A lexandrium ( War 1:27; Ant. 16, 394). Several architectural fragm ents in
the Doric order are all that rem ain of the H asm onean fortress. M ost of the fortress
is built on the m ountain sum m it, and was found in ruins, probably due to an earth­
quake, with stones, columns and capitals collapsed in a pile. However, rem ains in­
dicate a peristyle structure. A west wall with a stone vault seems to indicate a second
storey, probably of a palace with two terraces. M any colum n drum s, stucco and
fresco fragm ents were uncovered in the structure and around it. The centre of the
peristyle hall was paved with mosaic.
Cypros (fig. 21) (N etzer 1975b)
Cypros is a desert fortress built on a m ountain dom inating the Jericho valley. It
was first built by the H asm oneans, and later H erod constructed splendid buildings
on the site, which he nam ed for his m other Cypros. H erod built, as was his custom,
retaining walls on the slopes, and thus expanded the fortress area.
Rem ains of a palace have been uncovered on top of the m ountain. In the north­
west corner of the summ it a bath house was found (fig. 25d; see p. 59) and a further
building was discovered in the lower area. This also has a large bath house (fig. 25e)
which is probably earlier in date than the upper bath house.
48 JEW ISH ART A ND ARCHAEOLOGY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIO D ARCH ITEC TUR E 49

palace for the royal family or other im portant personages. Cypros was probably
burned and abandoned in The Jew ish W ar (66-70 CE).

Hyrcania (W right 1961: 8)

H yrcania is a fortress in the northeastern section of the Ju d e an desert whose re­
m ains were uncovered during a trial excavation. Fortress walls and towers were
found on the summ it of the hill. The enclosure contained a court surrounded on
three sides by rooms. A water system had been also in use.

Machaerus (Corbo 1979, 1980)

T he fortress of M achaerus is situated east of the Dead Sea. Excavations on the
site uncovered a fortification wall with several towers (fig. 22,1). T he wall encloses a
unit similar to other desert fortresses. It consists of three m ain sections: first, a paved
peristyle court in the upper centre of the site (2); second, another paved court in
the lower part, and a bath house to the west of this court containing a stepped
frigidarium (5) and large caldarium (4); and third, storerooms on the eastern side
of the court (3).

Jerusalem
In Jerusalem two im portant fortresses or citadels were built. O ne was the A n­
tonia, which com m anded the Tem ple M ount, and the other was the citadel near
H ero d ’s palace.

The Antonia Fortress

This fortress was rebuilt by H erod before 31 BCE, and is nam ed for M ark A n­
thony. It was situated close to the northwest corner of the Tem ple M ount, and
dom inated the Tem ple (fig. 2). Four square towers, one of which was taller than
the others, were situated at the corners. The interior of the fortress was designed and
furnished as a palace, as described by Josephus ( War V , 238-245). T he precise loca­
tion of the fortress is subject to debate (Benoit 1975; Bahat 1981b). N etzer (1981a:
100-101) m aintains that the A ntonia fortress is the prototype for the palace-fortress
of H erodium which differs only in its circular plan.

21. Plan o f Cypros. The Jerusalem Citadel

A citadel with three towers was built at the northwest corner of the city wall, north
T he function of the palace-fortresss at Cypros is not exactly clear. It could have of H ero d ’s palace (fig. 2). The towers were nam ed Hippicus, Phasael and
served either as another w inter palace for H erod, or as a place of refuge to which M ariam m e, for H ero d ’s friend, brother and wife respectively. Only the base of one
H erod could flee from Jericho during periods of unrest. It may also have been a of these towers has survived. It is 21 m. in length, 17 m. in width and has a solid
JEW ISH ART A N D ARCHAEOLO GY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIOD AR CH ITEC TUR E 51

23a. Jerusalem C ity W alls.

foundation. This was a multi-storeyed tower, identified by scholars either with Hip-
picus or Phasael (Geva 1982: 71).

d) The Jerusalem City Walls (fig. 23a,b)

T he H asm oneans began to refortify the city of Jerusalem and sections of the city
22. Plan o f M achaerus.
wall have been uncovered in excavations (Avigad 1983: 65-74). T he fortification of
Jerusalem is known from the writings of Josephus and from extensive excavations
52 JEW ISH ART A N D ARCHAEOLO GY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIOD ARCH ITEC TU RE 53

carried out during the last decade. The First Wall encompassed the whole western
hill, and encircled the U pper and Lower Cities (figs. 2, 23). It linked up with a sec­
tion of the earlier wall of Israelite Jerusalem near the Siloam pool, and, according
to Josephus, had about sixty towers. T he northern line of the First W all ran from
the H erodian palace towers in the area of the present-day Citadel, to the Tem ple
M ount. Its eastern line ended at the southeastern corner of the Tem ple M ount. Ben
Dov (1983:43 and plan on p. 47) proposes that the eastern line continued for about
thirty m etres on the eastern slope of the K idron Valley.
The reconstruction of the Second Wall's line is subject to controversy. According
to Josephus it ran from the “ G ennath G ate” in the First W all to the A ntonia For­
tress. It had only twelve towers, probably due to its fairly short course. The rem ains
of the H erodian gate foundation under the Dam ascus Gate are considered to be part
of this wall, which is ascribed to H erodian city fortifications.
T he Third Wall was built by K ing A grippa I (41-44 CE), H ero d ’s grandson. Its
construction including its s ninety towers ended abruptly and was only renewed
during the First W ar against the Rom ans in 67 CE. It ran north from the Hippicus
tower and turned east until the northeast tower of the Tem ple M ount. Its exact
course, like that of the Second Wall, is subject to controversy (Ben Dov 1983:45-47).

e) Caesarea Harbour (R aban and Hohlfelder 1981). fig. 24

23b. Jerusalem C ity W alls.
H e ro d ’s most im portant undertaking in Caesarea was the harbour nam ed
Sebastos, a m arvel of engineering and one of the greatest harbours known to have
been built in antiquity. U nderw ater excavations in recent years have yielded im por­
tant inform ation about the H erodian harbour which was fully described by Josephus
(Ant. X V , 334-338; War I, 413). H erod built two stone breakwaters: a southern
curved breakw ater about 480 m. in length, and from 40 to 60 m. in width, and a
shorter northern breakw ater, over two hundred m. long and 50 m. wide. Its inner
face held several interior loading platforms. At the head of the northern breakw ater
huge ashlar stones (some fifteen m etres in length) were found in the underw ater
debris. These stones presum ably formed the base of one of the towers built on either
side of the entrance to the original H erodian harbour, as described by Josephus. At
the head of the southern breakw ater, ruins of a massive building, probably a
lighthouse, were discovered.
T he distance between the two breakwaters was 18 m etres and probably m arked
the entrance into the harbour. The harbour moles were destroyed by earthquake.
T he total space of the harbour was about 1500 sq.m .( fig. 24).

24. Plan o f ancient C aesarea harbours after A . R ab an , Guide to Sebastos: 1) R om an aqueduct; 2) H ero­
dian m ain sewer; 3) B yzantine city wall; 4) R om an hippodrom e; 5) H ellen istic harbour; 6) C ity walls
o f Straton’s tower; 7) C ity wall; 8) H erodian harbour; 9) Crusader harbour; 10) Later R om an har­
bour; 11) R om an streets; 12) Fish M arket; 13) R om an theatre.
ARCHITECTURE 55
T he land excavations (Bull 1982: 34-36) uncovered about five vaulted complexes
of warehouses, which were part of the vast H erodian harbour warehouse and shipp­
ing installations built along the harbour front. These vaulted warehouses opened
onto streets, and several opened onto the C ardo M axim us.
H uge quantities of fragm ents of large am phorae typical of Italy, Spain, and other
countries were found inside these vaulted structures. They attest to the fact that
C asearea was a large, international harbour in antiquity.
4. Other Herodian Structures
Jerusalem Houses
Residential houses of the H erodian period are mostly known from those u n ­
covered during the excavations of the U pper City and the Tem ple M ount area in
Jerusalem . T he streets were not laid in a uniform plan and their direction followed
the topography of the area.
T he houses of the U pper City were built close to each other. Each house was
usually structured around a central court. Room s were decorated with mosaic floors,
wall paintings and stucco, and had elaborate water installations (fig. 25) (Avigad
1983: 83-98). Some of the buildings, such as the M ansion (fig. 25b), contained two
levels: a ground floor for dwelling, and a basem ent with water installations. Houses
similar to those in the U pper City have been uncovered near the Tem ple M ount
(Ben-Dov 1982: 149-153). In the A rm enian Q u arter outside the Zion Gate, rem ains
of houses with rooms, courts and water installations have been found. M any of the
installations were vaulted over and m any of the houses had two storeys. Splendid
fresco fragm ents with birds have been found (Broshi 1975: 57-58, PL III).
The Palace of Hilkiya (D am ati 1982)
In the H ebron area a splendid palace, H erodian in plan and ornam ent, has been
uncovered. T he palace is a rectangular building, having a peristyle court (8 x 10m. )
with an open triclinium in its centre. Thick walls surround the whole structure. The
palace contains rooms in rows around the court. Some of these rooms have barrel
vaults and they are decorated with stucco. The gate to the palace was uncovered in
the south. A bath house was found in the northern wing. In the west a tower m easur­
ing 13 x 13 m. was constructed.
M any architectural fragm ents were found during the excavations: N abatean
capitals, colum n bases and drum s, some of which bore m asons’ m arks and Hebrew
letters.
The palace was nam ed Hilkiya after a Greek inscription on a limestone slab which
m entions Hilkiya, son of Simon.
56 JEW ISH ART A ND ARCHAEOLOGY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIO D ARCH ITEC TURE 57

Herod's Tomb
T he location of H ero d ’s tomb is subject to m uch debate. A site for his m ausoleum ,
favoured by m any scholars, is H erodium . N etzer (1981a: 100-101), however, asserts
that H erodium was not H ero d ’s tom b, because first, no rem ains of any significance
which m ay suggest a m ausoleum have been found either at the palace-fortress or in
Lower H erodium ; second, the palace of H erodium was used for m ore than seventy
years, and would not, simultaneously, have served as a tomb; and finally, the sug­
gestion by scholars that the mausoleum of Augustus in Rom e had supplied the pro­
totype for the H erodium palace-fortress is unacceptable for architectural and
functional reasons. Netzer suggests that a circular building in Jerusalem (opposite
the present-day Dam ascus Gate) whose foundations are preserved, m ay have served
as H ero d ’s family m ausoleum (N etzer & Ben Arieh 1983:171).

Bath Houses
T he bath houses of the H erodian palaces and houses are modelled on fam iliar and
common R om an baths (Gichon 1978). The R om an bath generally consists (fig. 26)
of a caldarium (hot room )(l), a tepidarium (tepid room)(2), a frigidarium (cold
room)(3), and an apodyterium (entrance and disrobing room)(4). Usually the
caldarium is connected with the frigidarium . The furnace is usually built in the
courtyard.
M asada possessed three bath houses:
1) A large bath house is located next to the storerooms (fig. 26a). M ost of it, in­
cluding the ceiling, was decorated with fresco. The floor of the tepidarium was paved
with opus sectile, and the courtyard was paved with mosaics. The caldarium heated
by a hypocaust, which probably had a dom ed ceiling, had two niches, one round
and one rectangular. O ne contained a huge tub and the other a basin (Yadin 1966:
75-85).
2) A private bath house was uncovered in the W estern palace (Yadin 1966: 127).
3) A further private bath house was discovered on the lower terrace of the N orth­
ern palace (Yadin 1966: 47).
Herodium contained two bath houses:
1) In the fortress-palace was a large private bath house (fig. 26b). T he caldarium
is similar to the one at M asada. The frigidarium or tepidarium was a round room,
with a dom ed ceiling. The walls were covered with fresco and the floor was paved
with geometric mosaics.
2)* A bath house was found in the northern wing in Lower H erodium (N etzer
1981a: 47-84, figs. 77-78).

25. Jeru salem H ouses: a) R esidence; b) Palatial M ansion

58 JEW ISH ART A ND ARCHAEOLOGY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIO D ARCH ITEC TURE 59

B »k-U..W ■W

27. R econstruction o f the caldarium at C ypros, U p per Bath H ouse.

Jericho also had two bath houses:

1) A bath house was found in the H erodian palace II. Its rooms were set in a row
(fig. 11).
2) A large bath house was uncovered in the northern wing of H erodian palace III
(fig. 26c). It was situated close to the triclinium and the peristyle court, thus being
p art of the reception and leisure wing. T he bath house rooms were constructed in
a row.
Cypros had two bath houses (N etzer 1975b):
1) The upper one was in the palace-fortress (fig. 26d) and m ay have served the
king and his court. It had a large entrance hall(7). The caldarium (l) had a rec­
tangular niche with an alabaster tub which was found in situ (fig. 27) (N etzer 1975b:
26. Bath H ouses: a) M asada; b) H erodium Palace-Fortress; c) Jerich o W inter Palace III; d) and e)
(Jypros;
1) Caldarium ; 2) Tepidarium ; 3) Frigidarium ; 4) A podyterium .
60 JEW ISH ART A N D ARCHAEOLO G Y IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIO D c AR CH ITEC TU RE 61

Palace of Hilkiya (D am ati 1982: 117) The northern wing of this palace had a bath
house in its first level; a caldarium and a hypocaust; a tepidarium with a mosaic floor
and a frigidarium containing a pool.
Machaerus (Corbo 1979) had a large bath house in its southwestern corner, flank­
ing a court (fig. 22). Its frigidarium had steps and the tepidarium was paved with
a mosaic floor (Corbo 1979: PI. 44b).
■ ‫־‬.
2M
Ritual Baths
A structure unique to Jew ish architecture is the ritual bath. M any of the laws of
Judaism concern ritual purity and requirem ents for this purity were particularly
— · · ■· · . · · · ■· ■
' ·. ‫׳‬ · · ·. ; · . . · strict am ong the priests; thus it is not surprising that ritual baths (miqveh, miqvaoth)
have been found in Jerusalem close to the Tem ple, in the Tem ple M ount and U pper
City excavations. Similar baths have also been found in Jericho, which was also a
city of priests. According to Jew ish law, the ritual bath m ust hold about 750 litres
-------------- -— m//s
of either rain or spring water. It generally consisted of two pools, in one of which
the participant had to be immersed, having steps to ascend and descend, and in the
other of which called the “ store pool” the pure water was held. T he two pools were
connected by a pipe through which the w ater from both pools could come into con­
tact, thus purifying the w ater for ritual immersion.
In Jerusalem m any ritual baths have been found: about 48 were found in the
Tem ple M ount excavations (Ben Dov 1982: 151-152), and m any others were also
found in the U pper City (fig. 28) (Avigad 1983: 141-142, figs. 143-149).
The ritual baths of Jericho received their pure water from the aqueducts of the
Jericho valley (Netzer 1982a). Some of the Jericho ritual baths were already con­
structed in the H asm onean period and were in use during the H erodian period,
during which time several new ones were also built. T here were m any ritual baths
in Jericho and their plan was slightly different from those in Jerusalem . The pools
and their steps were of different sizes. They were very deep, probably to be able to
hold a large am ount of water. These baths probably served m any of the inhabitants
28. R itual Bath, Jerusalem ; 1) V estibule; 2) R itual Bath; 3) “ Store” Pool; 4) Bathroom . of Jericho, particularly its priestly families (N etzer 1982a: 119).
Several ritual baths were found at M asada having been constructed according to
the ritual regulations. M ost of them were built and used by the Zealots, the
57). Fragm ents of a basin were found in the other, semicircular niche. The floor was defenders of M asada after the Tem ple of Jerusalem was destroyed (Yadin 1966:
paved with opus sectile pavem ent, and under it was situated the hypocaust (fig. 26e). 164-167).
Some of the rooms were covered with fresco. At Q um ran several ritual baths were found (see p. 122).
2) The lower bath house was smaller, and its rooms were built in a row. The
caldarium ( 1) was unusually shaped: a rectangular room with one niche. The Buildings for Purposes of Culture and Amusement
tepidarium (2) and apodyterium had mosaic floors. a) The Hippodrome at Jericho (fig. 29) (N etzer 1980b). This building complex unique
 62 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIO D AR CH ITEC TUR E 63

d) The Stadium of Samaria-Sebaste (Crowfoot et al. 1942:41-50, fig. 12-17). This

stadium was built probably by H erod. It is 230 m. long and 60 m. wide and is
located in the northeastern part of the city. The stadium was surrounded by four
porticos with Doric columns and its walls were plastered (fig. 29).

Colonnaded Streets
Colonnaded streets were built by H erod in several towns. Excavations at Sam aria
have revealed a street of this type containing about 600 columns. The street began
at the western gate and continued for some 800 metres. In ■ 5A ntipatris (‫*־‬Aphek) an
eight-m etre wide Cardo runs north-south and has elevated pavem ents, shops and
workshops on either side (Kochavi 1981). In Caesarea the C ardo M axim us which
was uncovered in the recent excavations is dated to either the late R om an or Byzan­
tine periods, and probably followed the route of the original H erodian street (Bull
1982: 40).
29. H ippodrom e at Jericho and Sam aria stadium .

Aqueducts
in the G raeco-Rom an world is a com bination of a hippodrom e, a course for chariot
a) The Jerusalem aqueducts (fig. 2) (A. M azar 1975: m ap on p. 83). Jerusalem in the
and horse racing, and a theatre at the rear of which a building is attached. It was
Second Tem ple period had a problem of a lim ited w ater supply which was solved
uncovered at Tel el-Sam arat, 600 m. south of ancient Jericho. The hippodrom e
by the construction of several aqueducts. T he sources for the aqueducts lay south
course has a rectangular shape and its walls have been excavated, but no rem ains
of Jerusalem , and were located in three places: W adi cA rrub, Biyar and the area of
of the spina have been found. The spectators presum ably sat in the theatre-like struc­
Solom on’s Pools. A network of four aqueducts has been found, the oldest part of
ture at the northern end of the course. This structure has survived nearly intact, but
which is the Lower Aqueduct.
lacks its benches, steps, and passages. It is built on an artificial platform . A large
1) The cA rrub aqueduct runs in a circuitous route from cAin Kuw eiziba in the
building m easuring 70 x 70 m. was found behind the theatre, and is also constructed
south to Solom on’s Pools. It consists of a channel partly hewn and partly con­
on a platform . It surrounded a large court.
structed, partly exposed and partly covered by stone slabs. Solid dams bridge the
Netzer (1980b: 105-106) asserts that this hippodrom e complex was used for
wadis. This earliest aqueduct was probably constructed in the Second Tem ple
‘ ‘O lym pic” games, which were observed from the theatre-like structure. The
period, possibly by Pontius Pilate, with Tem ple funds. A second stage was added
building m ay have served as a royal reception wing, or a gym nasium, or possibly
in the M am eluke period.
a com bination of both.
2) The W adi Biyar aqueduct is completely different in construction. It is short and
b) The Hippodrome of Caesarea lies to the east of the harbour (Bull 1982: 32). Its re­
follows a route which is quite straight, mostly through hewn tunnels 3 m. in height.
m ains include granite metae, turning posts for chariot races, and fragm ents of an
This aqueduct was an exellent hydraulic project.
obelisk which stood in the centre.
3) The lower aqueduct is 21 kms. long, and runs from Solom on’s Pools to the
c) The Theatre at Caesarea (Frova et al. 1965: 55-244). Built by H erod, the theatre
Tem ple M ount. It consisted originally of two tunnels (one of which is now blocked).
is situated in the southern part of the town. T he rem ains of the theatre indicate that
T he aqueduct ran to the Tem ple M ount over W ilson’s Arch into a huge cistern
it is a Hellenistic type, particularly in its cavea, seats and its gangway. T he orchestra
system. This aqueduct was possibly built by the H asm oneans, and was also in use
and its floor are decorated with painted plaster in various patterns. The walls are
in the H erodian period.
decorated with m arble-im itative fresco. The scenae frons has a square central exedra
4) The upper aqueduct ran from the upperm ost of Solom on’s Pools to the R om an
flanked by smaller niches, which are all covered with plaster. The pulpitum was also
T enth Legion camp in the area of the present-day Citadel. It is either rock-hewn,
painted. Fragm ents of stucco which decorated the theatre have also been found.
64 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIO D
or m an-m ade; one section 2.5 m. in length consists of stone pipe segments, some
bearing inscriptions of the T enth Legion com m anders.
b) Caesarea. The high-level aqueduct nearly thirteen miles long originated at a
spring in the Carm el M ountains. It was partly carried over a series of arches and
partly hewn into the rock. T he aqueduct actually consists of two adjacent aqueducts,
the easternm ost probably built by H erod and the western by H adrian.
A low-level aqueduct following the same route is Byzantine in date (Bull 1982:
29-30).
c) Herodium. An aqueduct was built by H erod to bring water from U rtas for the
north wing, the pool complex, the gardens and other structures in Lower H erodium
(Netzer 1981a: 53).
d) Samaria. Sam aria had three aqueducts: one coming from the southeast, another
from the east and a third from the Shechem springs. T he third aqueduct is 15 kms.
in length and is partly a tunnel and partly a bridge.
CH APTER TW O
ART
Second Tem ple period Jew ish art is a decorative art characterized by a m ixture
of native traditions and Hellenistic-Rom an features. H ellenistic-Rom an culture
greatly influenced the upper classes (of all the N ear Eastern countries), as is attested
to by the predom inance of Hellenistic-Rom an architecture and by the use of the
Greek language and its institutions which affected m any aspects of everyday life.
Politically the country was first under Hellenistic, and later under R om an, rule.
However, resistance to the intrusive culture was strong, because of the force and
vitality of the Jew ish religion which completely controlled the com m unity’s ac­
tivities. Judaism also conceptually dom inated its decorative art so that neither
figurative nor symbolic representations were depicted.
T he various ornam ental devices and the repertoire of motifs used were part of the
general stream of R om an art, especially its provincial and eastern tributaries.
Decoration in H erodian architecture attests to the influence of R om an art.
Hellenistic tradition, m oreover, survived into the later H erodian period. A locally
developed style is encountered m ainly in funerary art, on tom b facades, on ossuaries
and on sarcophagi. The style of Jew ish art followed the basic O riental elements: a)
The “ endless” and “ all-over” patterns, b) Symmetrical stylization, c) Deep carving
resulting in contrast between parts, intensifying the play of light and shade, d) Horror
vacui—O rnam ent filling all available space.
Decoration of buildings, palaces, houses and bath houses of the Second Tem ple
period m ainly focussed on the use of wall paintings, stucco-plaster mouldings and
ornam ental floor pavements. The decorative elements, motifs and designs are char­
acterized by a total lack of anim ate motifs and symbolic emblems. This stems from
the reluctance of all Jew s, including the ruling families such as that of H erod and
his dynasty, to decorate any building or tom b with religious or iconic symbols. The
Biblical prohibition of “ no graven im age” was carefully kept (Ex. 20:4; Deut. 4:16;
27:15).
A) F loor P a vem ents
Two types of floor pavements are found in the Second Tem ple period buildings:
1) mosaic pavem ents and 2) floors paved in opus sectile.
66 JEW ISH ART A N D ARCHAEOLOGY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIO D
1) Mosaics
Mosaics decorated the floors of Second Tem ple period buildings, in H erodian
palaces as well as in the private homes of the upper class Jerusalem ites.
a) Herodian Palaces
Masada— Several mosaic floors were found at M asada. In the northern palace, a sim­
ple mosaic of black hexagons covers the upper terrace floor. An identical mosaic is
found in the bath house court of the W estern Palace (Yadin 1966: 61, 84) which has
two other mosaics. In one room a coloured mosaic floor has a geometric border and
a central rendition of popular vegetation motifs: pom egranates, vine leaves, grapes,
and fig leaves with a fram e of stylized olive branches (but see Baity 1981 who call
this m otif chainette: 358, n. 52). T he centre is rendered as a circle containing a
num ber of intersecting circles (PI. 7) (Yadin 1966: 119-127). The second mosaic is
located in the bath house corridor and portrays a circle consisting of radial segments
within a square. Yadin proposes that the bath house had a mosaic floor which was
later replaced by an opus sectile pavem ent (see below).
Herodium—Simple black and white mosaic floors were revealed in the bath house
of the palace.
Jericho—A crudely-fashioned and simple mosaic floor with squares and triangles
was found in one of the rooms of palace III (N etzer 1974: PI. I).
Caesarea—A mosaic carpet with a design similar to and probably imitative of opus
sectile floors such as at Jericho (Levine & Netzer 1978: fig. on p. 74) was found here.
Cypros—A simple geometric mosaic floor was found in the bath house (N etzer
1975b: PL A) (fig. 1.27).
Alexandrium (Sartaba)—A crudely m ade and simple mosaic paved the centre of the
peristyle hall (Tsafrir & M agen 1984: 31).
Machaerus—The tepidarium had a mosaic floor (Corbo 1979: PL 44b.).
b) Private Houses (in the U pper City of Jerusalem )
(Avigad 1983: 144-146, figs. 150-151, 160-165)
T en ornam ented and plain mosaic pavem ents, several of which paved bath
rooms, were found in these houses (Pl. 6). T he central m otif of these floors is usually
a six-petalled rosette(Pl. 6b), but in one case it is a three-petalled rosette (Avigad
1983: figs. 162, 163). O ne bath complex has a mosaic with a wave border m otif
enclosing a circle with a m ulticoloured and m ultipetalled rosette. In the corners were
palmettes and a spindle bottle (PL 6c)(Avigad 1983: fig. 161). Only three mosaic
floors have survived in living rooms: one has a rosette within a square frame. The
ART 67
corners bear a geometric pattern similar to the “ gam m a” m otif (Avigad 1983: 146,
fig. 164). A nother mosaic floor which has partly survived bears a central carpet of
intertw ined m eanders fram ed by wave, guilloche and “ crow-step” patterns (PI.
6a)(Avigad 1983: 144, fig. 165).
2) Floors in Opus Sectile (coloured stone tiles)
Jericho—The triclinium reception hall (B70) has a floor in opus sectile with designs
of octagons and squares in the central carpet, surrounded by simple designs (fig. 1).
A mosaic m ay have filled the space of the destroyed centre.
Masada—The bath house was paved with an opus sectile floor. It probably replaced
an earlier mosaic floor (Yadin 1966: 81).
Cypros—Fragm ents of an opus sectile floor were found in the bath house caldarium
(N etzer 1975b: 57-58) (fig. 1.27).
Jerusalem—A floor with traces of opus sectile tiles was found in a room of one of the
U pper City houses. It depicts a design of interlocking circles m ade of black squares
and red triangles (fig. 2).
Usually, all that rem ains of these floors consists of a few tiles found in the debris
of the structures. The pavements which were m ade by this technique have usually
disappeared. Only the bedding survived, and it is this bedding which contains the
impression of the tiles which formed the design, the patterns of which m ay be
reconstructed from the surviving impressions.
B) W all P a in t in g s
M any of the palaces, mansions and houses were adorned with coloured wall paint­
ings. A wall painting has also been found in a m onum ental tom b in Jericho. M ost
wall paintings are m ade by the fresco technique: the wall is covered with wet lime
plaster consisting of a coating of sand and slaked lime. The painting is executed with
colours onto the wet plaster. In this way the paiiitm g is absorbed into and dries with
the plaster and can neither be rubbed nor peeled off; because of this m ethod wall
paintings have survived in good condition through the ages. A nother technique used
in wall painting is secco, where paint is applied to dry plaster. However, in this case
the paint tends to peel off. M ost of the wall paintings which have survived were
m ade by the fresco technique.
Masada—Painted walls are found in the N orthern Palace. T he wall painting of the
lower terrace has a m arbled pattern (fig. 3) (Yadin 1966: 44-49). Fragm ents of a
frescoed wall were found in the debris of the upper terrace (Yadin 1966: 69). In the
bath house, frescoes covered the tepidarium and the apodyterium , and fragm ents
 68 JEW ISH ART A ND ARCHAEOLO GY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIOD ART

1. O pus Sectile Floor Patterns from Jericho. W inter

Palace III.

of ceiling fresco were found as well (Yadin 1966: 79-80). O ther palaces also had wall
paintings of fram ed panels (Yadin 1966: 136-137).
Herodium—Frescoed walls decorated the bath house and other rooms of the palace-
fortress (Corbo 1963: 241-247, 260-262, figs. 9, 10, 12, 18, 20). These IIHH
m ulticoloured frescoes depict framed m arbled patterns. 3. M arble-im itative Fresco from N orth Palace at M asada.
70 JEW ISH ART A N D ARCH AEOLOGY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIO D
4. Painted Frieze o f Floral M otifs.
Jericho—Fragm ents of coloured im itation-m arble patterned fresco were found in
the H asm onean palace. The walls of the third H erodian palace were covered with
m arbled patterns and various other designs (N etzer 1975a: PI. 8b).
Cypros—T he bath house walls were covered with frescoes in red and yellow. Fresco
fragm ents were also found in a hall (N etzer 1975b: 58, PI. B).
Alexandrium (Sartaba)—Fresco fragm ents were found in the debris of the fortress’
peristyle structure (Tsafrir & M agen 1984: 30).
Jerusalem—a) The so called “ House of C aiaphas” on M ount Zion was adorned
with elaborate frescoes which include bird portrayals, a unique appearance in Sec­
ond Tem ple period art (Broshi 1975: PL III), b) Several houses in the U pper City
contain fragm ents of fresco which had once adorned walls. M any had im itation-
m arble patterns.
T he frescoes in Jerusalem include designs of plants (fig. 4) as well as architectural
motifs. T he garlands, pom egranates, apples and leaves depicted show a high artistic
standard typical of Hellenistic painting and rem iniscent of early Pom peian wall
paintings (Avigad 1983: 149-150, figs. 103-106; 168-174).
ART 71
Caesarea—In the theatre, the orchestra walls were decorated with fresco of im ita­
tion m arble patterning.
Jericho, Goliath Family T om b—Jew ish tombs do not usually have wall paintings.
However, a unique wall painting decorated the m onum ental Goliath tom b in
Jericho (Hachlili 1985). Depicted on three walls of the upper room of the tomb (figs.
IV , 20, 21), the m ain them e consists of vine branches with leaves and grapes. Birds
are rendered perched between the branches. O ther motifs appearing in the wall
paintings are a wreath and ashlar stones which are depicted on the wall opposite the
entrance (fig. IV , 21).
C )Stucco
Stucco mouldings were found in m any of the H erodian palaces and buildings.
The original styles and the standard of execution point to local workm anship even
though generally the ornam entation followed the R om an examples. Stucco usually
decorated ceilings and upper parts of walls, as well as covering columns m ade of
local stone in order to make them appear fluted.
Masada—Stucco fragm ents were found on the lower terrace of the N orthern
Palace. Bases and column drum s covered with stucco imitative of fluting
characterizes this terrace (Avi-Yonah et al. 1957: Pis. 10:1,3; 12:2; 14:1,2).
Herodium—Stucco with various profiles such as egg-and-dart decoration and
tongue m ouldings were uncovered at H erodium (N etzer 1981a: 73-74, figs.
101-103).
Jericho— Stucco moulded panels decorating walls which were sometimes also
painted were found in the palace at Jericho (Kelso & Barcamki 1955: Pis. 19, 20a).
Cypros—Fragm ents of m oulded stucco were found in the palace (N etzer 1975b:
59, 60) .
Machaerus— Fragm ents of stucco were found in the bath house (Corbo 1979: PI.
48).
In other H erodian palaces stucco fragm ents were also uncovered: at the Hilkiya
palace (D am ati 1982: 120) and at A lexandrium (Tsafrir & M agen 1984: 30).
Jerusalem—T he M ansion in the U pper City had a large reception hall which was
ornam ented with white stucco im itating ashlar stones. M oulded plaster fragm ents
which probably had fallen from the ceiling were found in the debris of the hall, and
m any of them bear the egg-and-dart m otif (Avigad 1983: 99-103, figs. 87-91).
Avigad (1983: 102) m aintains that the m ethod of im itating ashlar stones by modell­
ing them in plaster is not derived from any local Jerusalem style, but is rather an
earlier stylistic tradition which had survived in the East longer than it did in its
original Hellenistic context.
72 JEW ISH ART A N D ARCHAEOLOGY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIO D ART

D) Stone C a r v in g

A new type of ornam ent, indigenous to Jew ish art, appears at this time and is pro­
duced by a special technique of stone carving (Kerbschnitt). This new technique using
compass, ruler and chisel, results in deep carvings and in a variety of characteristic
designs such as rosettes, and is found in architectural decoration and on stone
objects.
Decorative stonework features in architecture of buildings and tombs. It is
characteristic of funerary art: tomb facades were decoratively carved and stone sar­
cophagi and ossuaries, in particular, exhibit a vast ensemble of local decorative
stonework.

Architectural Ornamentation
Fragm ents of capitals, lintels, friezes and other architectural m em bers were found
along the west and south Tem ple retaining walls in Jerusalem . They probably came
from the pilasters of the upper courses of the walls and from the Royal Stoa (M azar
1975a: 25). Identical C orinthian capitals were found in the north palace at M asada
(Yadin 1966: 70-71) and in Cypros (N etzer 1975b: PI. B). Both are carved out of
local stone and painted in gold which has survived only in traces. Parts of stone col­
um ns, capitals and bases were found in the Tem ple M ount (fig. 5) and U pper City
excavations: a C orinthian capital m ade of hard local stone bears lily scrolls, the
stonem ason’s own addition, on one side (Avigad 1983: 150-165, figs. 157, 200); a
huge base and a finely-executed Ionic capital from m onum ental columns (fig. 6)
were uncovered, indicating the existence in Jerusalem of m onum ental architecture
and craftsm anship of a high standard. The entrances of the H ulda Gates of the T em ­
ple M ount were built of stone domes more than five m etres in diam eter and carved
with geometric and floral motifs (fig. 7 and PI. 9) surm ounted on columns and with
walls built of ashlar stones.

Stone Objects
Tables
Several stone tables were found during the excavations in the Jew ish Q u arter in
Jerusalem (Avigad 1983: 167-174). Fragm ents of tables have also been discovered
in other excavations. Finds m ay be divided into two types:
1) A table with a rectangular top and a single, central leg which is carved in the form
of a column. The edges of the table top are generally decorated with a carved design
(fig. 8) (Avigad 1983: figs. 185-186) having either floral or geometric motifs (see 6. Ionic C apital from U p per C ity E xcavations
74 JEW ISH ART A N D ARCHAEOLOGY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIO D ART 75

7a. D ecorated Stone D om e o f the H uldah G ates. 7b. D ecorated Stone D om e o f the H uldah G ates.
76 JEW ISH ART A ND ARCHAEOLOGY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIOD

7c. D ecorated Stone D om e o f the H uldah G ates.

78 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIOD
pp. 79-80). O ne edge is usually plain, suggesting that the table was m eant to stand
against the wall. O ne ornam ented table top edge itself portrays such a table with
vessels standing on it and with several large jars supported by the table leg (fig. 9)
(R ahm ani 1974; Avigad 1983:figs. 194-195).
2) A round table which is smaller and lower than table type 1; and which stood on
three legs probably ending in anim al feet (Avigad 1983: figs. 188-192). Hellenistic
and R om an paintings which depict such tables prove that the rectangular table type
was used to hold drinking vessels and that the round type was used for meals (Avigad
1983: 191-192).
Vessels
M ost of the stone vessels are m ade of soft limestone and have a distinctive form
which is either 1) carved by hand, or 2) m ade on a lathe. H and carved stone vessels
such as cups with handles, square bowls and vessels with multiple com partm ents
were found in Jerusalem and at other sites. They are considered to be “ m easuring
cups” for dry and liquid measures (Avigad 1983: 174-183, figs. 197, 198, 207-209;
Ben Dov 1982: 158-160).
T he phenom enon of this particular craft of stonework being so highly cultivated
can be explained by the Jew ish law that stone vessels do not become contam inated
by contact with uncleanliness (Mishnah Kelim 10:1; Parah 3,2). Because of this law
stone vessels were very popular containers (Avigad 1983:183).
D) S to nem a so n s
Stone carving became, particularly in Jerusalem , a highly skilled craft, as is
evidenced by the elaborately decorated examples of funerary art which rem ain:
tom b facades, sarcophagi and ossuaries are carved and incised in an instantly
recognizable style which developed from local artistic traditions. Stone vessel carv­
ing was also highly developed. Recently quarries have been found in the Jerusalem
area which were probably the workshops of the stone craftsmen.
R ahm ani (1982: 112) proposes that there were two types of local stone artisans:
stonemasons who executed tomb facades, sarcophagi and ossuaries; and stone
carvers who prepared stone vessels from the local limestone.
The existence of Jew ish stonemasons is indicated by the appearance o f
stonem asons’ marks and Hebrew letters on column drum s. At M asada each column
is composed of several drums: in order that they would be correctly fitted together,
each column was assigned a letter, and each drum a num ber. Stone cutters’ m arks
with Hebrew letters (Yadin 1965: PI. 21 :A; 1966: 68-69) were found on a num ber
ART 79
of column drum s. The m any drum s which had to be am algam ated into columns
necessitated the use of Palaeo-Hebrew script, L atin letters as well as geometric signs
in order to provide enough differing combinations. The use of Hebrew letters at
M asada shows that the stonemasons were Jew ish. A similar system of m arking m ust
have been used in the Hilkiya Palace where one such cutter’s m ark was found
(D am ati 1982: 120).
Further evidence for the existence of Jew ish stonemasons and artists m ay be
gathered from the choice of designs found on ossuaries, artefacts and m onum ents.
The standard ossuary design consisting of a decorated fram e enclosing a tripartite
design of symmetrically carved rosettes sometimes flanking a central motif, con­
tinues into Late A ntiquity in Jew ish synagogal art, where tripartite designs are
popular (p. 359). This continuity of design suggests that the original conception was
also associated with Jew ish artistic notions. Furtherm ore, the cluster of grapes con‫״‬
sisting of a central bunch flanked by two smaller ones (fig.IV , 8) which Avi-Yonah
(1981: 70) m aintains is a preferred type in Jew ish art, as depicted on m onum ents
such as the T om b of the Kings and the G rape Tom b (figs. IV , 8,9), follows an O rien­
tal model.
E) M o t if s
The repertoire of Second Tem ple period Jew ish art consists of ornam ental motifs
which can be divided into the following types:
1) Plant—floral and vegetation motifs and patterns.
2) Geom etric patterns.
3) Architectural motifs.
4) V aria.
5) Faunal motifs: birds and fish.
6) Tem ple vessels: M enorah and Table.
7) Motifs on Jew ish coins.
1) Plant motifs (Avi-Yonah 1981a: 66 ff.) were part of ornam ental art and were
comm on designs in ancient art. They were used in architectural ornam entation, and
as funerary ornam ent. Floral and vegetation motifs were considered suitable for
aniconic expression, for repetitive patterns and for filling spaces. Plant motifs were
either adopted from earlier O riental designs or were im itations of local flora. T heir
form and composition are sometimes stylized into abstract or geometric patterns.
Floral motifs include the palm ette and the lotus. Palm ettes are found on a
Jerusalem house mosaic (PI. 6b) and on a glass pitcher (Avigad 1983: figs. 95, 96,
161) whereas the lotus appears on a Jerusalem house fresco (Avigad 1983: fig. 173).
80 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIO D
Leaves are present on a fresco and on a stone table from Jerusalem (figs. 4, 8)
(Avigad 1983: 106, 185).Floral motifs such as acanthus leaves, lilies, flowers, b ran ­
ches, wreaths and garlands are found in funerary art: on Jerusalem tomb facades
(figs. IV. 8-10; Tom b of the Kings, the Frieze T om b and the Cave of Jehoshaphat),
on ossuaries (R ahm ani 1982: 115; Figuras 1983: 45-53) and on sarcophagi (fig.
IV . 18).
V egetation motifs include pom egranates, olive leaves, vine branches and leaves
and grapes. Pom egranates appear in the frescoes and mosaics of the Jerusalem U p ­
per City houses (Avigad 1983: figs. 108, 166) and in the mosaic of the western palace
at M asada (Yadin 1966: 124-125). Olive leaves decorate a stone table (fig. 8) and
pottery bowls from Jerusalem (Avigad 1983: figs. 94; 115) and H erodium (Netzer
1981a: Pl. 7). Vine branches, leaves and grapes are popular motifs which decorate
several architectural fragm ents from Jerusalem (Avigad 1983: 184). This m otif is
even m ore popular in funerary art and appears in the wall painting in the Goliath
family tomb in Jericho (fig. IV .21) (Hachlili 1985), on tomb facades in Jerusalem ,
on the Tom b of the Grapes (fig. IV .9), on the Nazirite sarcophagus (Pl. 8) and some
ossuaries (Pl. 18).
The palm or date tree with stylized leaves occurs on a M asada fresco (Yadin 1966:
47) and also decorates ossuaries (R ahm ani 1982: 115; Figueras 1983: 42-43).
Only one record of the appearance of an apple m otif has been recorded, on a
fresco fragm ent from a Jerusalem house (Avigad 1983: fig. 167).
2) Geometric patterns. T he rosette is the most prom inent m otif in Jew ish art and
could be said to exemplify it (Avi-Yonah 1981a: 97-111). Executed with the aid of
a compass, the rosette developed from a traditional geometric motif. It occurs in al­
most all aspects of Jew ish art, such as in architectural decoration, on stone tables
(fig. 8) and a sundial from Jerusalem (Avigad 1983: figs. 116, 185), and in mosaics
from Jerusalem and M asada (Pis. 6, 7). In funerary art the rosette fills the spaces
in Doric friezes on tomb facades such as the Frieze T om b (fig. IV. 7) and also ap­
pears on sarcophagi (fig. IV , 18). It is also the m otif which most frequently occurs
on ossuaries (R ahm ani 1982: 114; Figueras 1983: 36-41) (figs. IV. 15-17). O ther
geometric motifs include m eanders, waves, guilloches, lozenges and hexagons. They
are depicted in mosaics as borders or in the centre of the pavem ent design, as at
M asada (P1.7) or in the U pper City of Jerusalem (Pl. 6) (Avigad 1983: figs. 108,
161, 165). These motifs also occur in fresco and stucco (Avigad 1983: figs. 90, 91,
174; M azar 1975a: 28-29; Ben-Dov 1982: 138). A capital from the synagogue of
G am la is ornam ented with a m eander design (M aoz 1981a: 36).
Geom etric patterns also appear in funerary art, and usually consist of circles and
intersecting lines. O n ossuaries the zigzag m otif frequently appears as a frame
(figs.15-17).
ART 81
3) Architectural patterns are found rendered in fresco and stucco, as well as
decorating funerary art. A frequent design shown is the “ ashlar stone” pattern. A
m ansion in the U pper City of Jerusalem has a large reception hall covered in white
stucco which imitates ashlar stones (Avigad 1983: 99-102, figs. 87, 88, 90, 101).
This technique is common in Hellenistic cities and is also seen later at Pom peii (until
the first century BCE). The same m otif is depicted in funerary art in the wall paint­
ing of the Goliath family tomb at Jericho (figs. IV .20, 21) (Hachlili 1985: 124), and
on ossuaries (R ahm ani 1982: 114).
A rchitectural decorative patterns such as walls covered by im itation m arble are
found in fresco in the H erodian palaces of M asada (Yadin 1966: 46) and in the
Jerusalem houses (Avigad 1983: 168-171), which also exhibit friezes of dentils
(Avigad 1983: figs. 172, 173). Ossuaries are decorated with m etope patterns
(R ahm ani 1982: 114). In several instances the m otif of a nefesh, a tom b m onum ent,
is rendered on ossuaries and wall decoration (fig. IV .22; PL 17a) (R ahm ani 1968;
Hachlili 1981).
4) Varia. O ther motifs are found in the art of the Second Tem ple period. T he cor­
nucopia and pom egranate are common motifs on H erodian coins (M eshorer 1982,
II: 27-28), and appear also on a stone table top from Jerusalem (Avigad 1983: fig.
186). T he am phora is depicted on ossuaries (R ahm ani 1982: 116; Figueras 1983:
73-74). A rare depiction of a spindle bottle is portrayed in the corner of a mosaic
pavem ent in Jerusalem (PL 6c)(Avigad 1983: 144, fig. 161).
5) FaunalMotifs rarely occur in the Second Tem ple period. Birds are rare (Hachlili
1983: 87, fig. 12); in Jerusalem they appear on a palace fresco (Broshi 1975: Pl. III)
and incised on the handle of a stone vessel (Ben Dov 1982: 160). In the Jericho
Goliath family tom b wall painting several birds appear am ong the vine branches
(fig. IV .21). An eagle is depicted on one H erodian coin type, and is probably
associated with the golden eagle H erod had installed over the Tem ple gate
(M eshorer 1982, II: 129). A stucco fragm ent with an outstanding m otif consisting
of animals was found in a private building alongside the Tem ple M ount (Ben Dov
1982: 151). O ne depiction of a fish appears on a stone table top in Jerusalem (fig.
8) (Avigad 1983: fig. 185:4).
6) Temple Vessels. The most significant designs appearing in this period are the
Tem ple M enorah and Table which were the most im portant Tem ple vessels. They
appear, for example, on the Arch of Titus in Rom e (PL 53) and a graffito of the
m enorah and table is incised on a plaster fragm ent from Jerusalem (fig. IX . 1)
(Avigad 1983: 147-149; see also pp. 237-238). Incised m enoroth are rendered on a
sundial in Jerusalem (fig. IX .2a). Examples of the m enorah manifested in funerary
art include the graffiti on the wall of the corridor of J a so n ’s tom b (fig. IX .2b) and
82 JEW ISH ART A N D ARCHAEOLOGY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIO D
two incised m enoroth on ossuaries (R ahm ani 1980: 114-115). This depiction of
Tem ple vessels on the Arch of T itus was m eant to reflect R om an victory over Ju d ea,
whereas the other incised depictions of the m enorah represented spontaneous at­
tem pts by people who probably had seen the Tem ple M enorah and wished to draw
it from m em ory (see also pp. 237-239).
7) Motifs onJewish Coins. Emblems depicted on coins are carefully chosen and show
designs which are m eant to express im m ediate needs and can serve as a short term
symbol. Both kings Antigonus and H erod wished to obtain the m axim um prop­
aganda effect by their selection of specific emblems for their coinage. M attathias A n­
tigonus (40-37 BCE), the last Jew ish H asm onean king, m inted his coins during a
difficult time when, although supported by a people loyal to his H asm onean
heritage, he was being usurped by H erod A ntigonus’ coins depict the Tem ple
vessels, the M enorah and the Table (PI. 59a, b) (M eshorer 1982, II: 87-97); in this
way he hoped to enhance and establish his status as Jew ish king and high priest.
Simultaneously with his rule, H erod, who came from a non-Jewish Edom ite family,
was appointed king of Ju d e a by Rom e. In order to substantiate his right to reign
he issued coins. M eshorer (1982, II: 18-30) m aintains that these consisted of two
groups: one group of coins was struck in Sam aria in 40-37 BCE, and the other was
of undated coins struck in Jerusalem in 37-4 BCE. The coins of the first group were
m inted to rival those of Antigonus, and deliberately depicted designs imitative of the
R om an Republican coins of 44-40 BCE. In this way H erod hoped to prove that his
kingship, contrary to that of Antigonus, was legitim ate and had R om an support.
T he second group of coins, struck in Jerusalem after H erod had become the sole
king, depicts designs relating to the Jew ish Tem ple and Jew ish art. M eshorer further
states that all the H erodian kings (H erod, A grippa I and A grippa II), who were ap­
pointed and backed by Rom e, used designs on their coins which im itated R om an
issues, although the,em blem s did not necessarily convey the same connotations.
Motifs depicted on the coins of the Jew ish W ar (66-70 CE), and later on those
of the Bar K okhba W ar (132-135'CE), are of religious and national significance, and
include the chalice and the bundle with the four species of the Feast of Tabernacles
(M eshorer 1982, II: 106-122).
T hus, motifs on coins were significant emblems which were used for their n a ­
tional, political or religious m eanings.
Motifs in Jew ish art derived from traditional elements in local, native art,
although they were occasionally taken from H ellenistic-Rom an art and from that of
neighbouring cultures. A further source of inspiration was the natural environm ent
from where floral and faunal subjects were borrowed and adapted. Ossuaries were
ART 83
decorated with motifs derived from Jerusalem tombs, thus reflecting a funerary con­
text (R ahm ani 1982: 112, 115-117; cf. Figueras 1983: 83-110).
W hat is most conspicuously lacking in the Second Tem ple period ensemble of
motifs is any figurative representation or any m otif indicating symbolic significance.
It is only later, in the third century, that motifs acquire a symbolic status (for exam ­
ple the m enorah, see p. 236ff.). Consequently it can be stated that the Jew s of the
Second Tem ple period honoured the Biblical injunctions by refraining from
representations of hum ans and animals in their art. However, whereas official and
public art was strictly aniconic, private dwellings did sometimes use ornam entation
which portrayed figurative motifs, usually birds.
In conclusion it can be seen that a Jew ish art developed in the Second Tem ple
period which exhibits several characteristic features:
1) Stonework, carving and use of relief characterize Jew ish Second Tem ple period
art and continue later in Jew ish synagogal art. Stonework was one of the most
prevalent crafts of Jew ish art which flourished in H erodian times. It utilized the
locally available stone, and created a new type of ornam ent. T he designs were sket­
ched in by compass and ruler and carved out by chisel in a deeply incised and
stylized m anner. Stonework features in the architecture of buildings and tombs and
in funerary art. Stone craft is also used for objects of daily life, such as ornam ented
stone tables and domestic vessels.
2) The repertoire of ornam ental aniconic motifs reflects a rigid choice of floral,
geometric and architectural patterns, some of which were adopted from Hellenistic
art.
3) Jew ish art style displays m any O riental elements.
These elements characterize all Jew ish art, including the simple local art en­
countered m ainly in funerary art, as well as that seen in the palaces and tombs. Dif­
ferences lie usually in the quality of execution and in the attention paid to decorative
detail.
Thus evolved a local Jew ish art, strictly aniconic, using neither figures nor sym­
bols. In their struggle against paganism and idolatry the Jew s refrained from using
anim ate motifs and representational art. O nly with the decline of paganism during
the third century did the attitude of Jew ish art change, resulting in the use of
figurative motifs.
 SECOND TEM PLE PERIO D SYNAGOGUES 85

CHAPTER THREE

SEC O N D T E M P L E P E R IO D SY N A G O G U ES

Several public structures of the Second Tem ple period which have been
discovered in the last decades are considered to be synagogues: at M asada (PL
10a)(Yadin 1965, 1981), H erodium (Pl. 10b) (Foerster 1981), G am la (Pl.
ll)(G u tm a n 1981; M aoz 1981a) and M igdal (Corbo 1976) (fig. 1; Table 1; Pis. 10-
11), and another synagogue, now lost, reported at C horazin. The rarity of discovery
of synagogues of this period is due to several reasons (M aoz 1981: 35): later struc­
tures m ay have either covered or destroyed them ; and a lack of distinguishing a r­
chitectural features, ,and the lack of symbols, creates difficulties in classification.
Nevertheless, the excavated structures are assum ed by scholars to be synagogues
because of the circum stantial evidence of similarity to each other in architectural
plan, and therefore, in function, even though no actual proof has been uncovered.
‫׳‬These comm on architectural features inlcude (fig. 1, T a b .l): a) All structures built 1. Second T em ple Period Synagogues: a)
M asada; b) H erodium ; c) G am la; d) M igdal
as oblong halls, b) Hall divided by rows of columns into a central nave and surroun­
building (Synagogue?).
ding aisles, c) Stepped benches erected along all four walls of the hall facing the
centre.
The structures also share a similar date for their construction in the first century Table 1 : Second Temple Synagogues
CE (although G am la m ay have been erected already by the end of the first century
D ate in C olum ns
BCE). Only the structure at G am la was adorned with architectural ornam entation, centuries CE M easurem ent Entrance 2 4 C or­ Floor
such as that found on lintels and capitals. T he buildings were probably single Syn agogue unless stated W. L. O rientation R ow s R ow s ner # Benches Plaster Stone
storeyed. T he Gam la synagogue was an independent, intentionally designed M asada 1st 12.0 x 15.0 East + + +
assembly structure, whereas the M asada and H erodium structures,having originally H erodium 1st. 10.5 x 15.0 East + + +
G am la 1st B C E -IC E 15.1 x 19.6 S W + + + + +
been triclinia were converted into synagogues, which then served as reception and C apernaum 1st 1 8 .5 x 2 4 .2 East + + basalt ‫־‬
ceremonial halls. This change was carried out by altering the arrangem ent of the col- M igdal 1st 7.0 x 8.0 N W (?) + +
um nation (that is, by reusing the columns in different places), and by adding the
stepped benches along the walls. T he synagogue halls of M asada and H erodium also
included additional, small rooms which probably served as repositories (genizah) and * was destroyed by the Rom ans in 70 CE (Corbo 1976), becoming a w ater installa­
adjacent ritual baths (miqveh). T he M asada and H erodium structures have similar tion. T he M igdal small synagogue was 8.16 x 7.25 m. and contained five rows of
dimensions (1 2 x 1 5 m. and 1 0 .5 x 1 5 m. respectively). G am la is larger benches along its northern wall and three rows of columns, the southern ones of
(19.60 x 15.10 m .) (see table 1). which were corner columns. Netzer (1980a: note 13, p. 116) and M aoz (1981a: 39)
A small building was uncovered in M igdal (fig. Id), situated on the western shore assert that the small structure at M igdal is a nym pheum .
of the K innereth (Sea of Galilee), and is dated to the first century. In the First Jew ish A synagogue belonging to this period has been uncovered recently at C apernaum ,
W ar against the Rom ans, M igdal became a Zealot stronghold and the synagogue under the later synagogue, and is possibly the only one of these early synagogues
 86 JEW ISH ART A N D ARCHAEOLOGY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIO D
found buried under a later synagogue. Renewed excavations during the last few
years date this early synagogue to the first century (Corbo 1982; also Strange and
Shanks 1983). This evidence consists of several basalt walls and a basalt cobbled
pavem ent abutting them . T he walls ru n under the south wall and east and west
stylobates of the prayer hall of the later synagogue (II), and were later reused as
foundations for the limestone walls of this later building (II)(Corbo 1982:Photos
1,2,5,8,10). Benches are assumed to have lined the aisles, but no entrance has been
discovered. The plan of the earlier building appears to conform to the plan of the
later prayer hall. The dating of the early synagogue to the first century is based on
pottery which was found under and in the basalt cobbled pavem ent. Thus, the ex­
cavations prove that the synagogue of the fourth-fifth centuries at C apernaum was
erected above an earlier first century basalt synagogue, which is somewhat similar
in plan both to the later C apernaum synagogue and to the other Second Tem ple
period synagogues.
These structures were erected according to an architectural conception which saw
the hall as serving as a place of assembly for a congregation which would gather to
worship. Such a structure might have had a focal point in the centre of the hall (as
‫ ־‬suggested by M aoz 1981a: 38-41; H üttenm eister 1982:3).
The Origin of the Architectural Plan
Scholars propose several sources for the origin of this type of synagogue: Avigad
(1967: 96-97) suggests that the Hellenistic basilica was the source of inspiration,
mainly because of the similar style of colum nation of the hall. Foerster (1981: 28-29)
compares the synagogue structure to assembly halls, pronaoi of the eastern pagan
temples, as at D ura (already rejected by M aoz 1981a: 40-41 and C hiat 1981: 50-52).
Y adin (1965: 78-79), followed by M aoz (1981a: 41) proposes that the M asada
synagogue plan is derived from those of secular Hellenistic halls (the ecclesiaterion,
the bouleuterion, and the telesterion).
Yet it seems entirely unnecessary to seek so far afield for the sources of the a r­
chitectural inspiration,. By placing these structures within their historical as well as
their actual context it becomes obvious that they were the result of local im provisa­
tion. Built at a time of war not conducive to architectural innovation, the structures
were built by modification of previously existing buildings; changes m ade were only
those essential to serve their new function. By the reuse at M asada and the supple­
m ent at H erodium of columns, and by the addition of benches around the walls, the
prior H erodian triclinium was thus altered into an assembly hall required by the new
congregation (the Zealots). At Gam la an assembly hall was also created with the ad­
SECOND TEM PLE PERIO D SYNAGOGUES 87
dition of benches. Its plan probably followed the triclinium plan common in the
H erodian palaces of Jericho and elsewhere.
M aoz (1981a: 40) is correct in his emphasis on the benches as being the most im ­
portant element of these synagogue structures (also C hiat 1981: 51-52), as they m ust
have been specifically added for the congregants to sit upon during their assembly
and worship. This arrangem ent of benches lining all the walls is the most distinctive
feature of the Second Tem ple period synagogues; it also continues into the later
synagogues, where the benches, however, occupy less space. By contrast the focal
point in the later synagogues becomes the T orah shrine which is constructed on the
Jerusalem -oriented wall (see p. 166f.).
Are These Structures Synagogues?
Synagogues in the Second Tem ple period are known m ainly from literary sources
(Safrai 1976: 909-910). Rabbinical literature m entions synagogues in Jerusalem : B.
Ketubot 105a and J . Megilla III, 1, 73d assert that T itus and Vespasian destroyed
either 394 or 480 synagogues in Jerusalem and a Jerusalem synagogue is recorded
in T. Sukka 4, 5. Synagogues in other places are m entioned by Josephus at Tiberias
(Life 277), D or (Ant. X IX , 300) and C aesarea (War II, 285-290). A C apernaum
synagogue is recorded in the New Testam ent (M ark 1:21; Luke 7:1). However,
despite the literary sources, very little actual proof has been uncovered until now.
O ne Greek inscription from a synagogue found in Jerusalem and dated to the first
century (ASR 1981: fig. on p. 11) m entions a synagogue “ built for the purpose of
reciting the Law and studying the com m andm ents.” Y adin (1981: 21) bases his con­
tention that the M asada structure is a synagogue upon finding there a type of genizah
with scrolls and an ostracon with the inscription “ priestly tith e” (cf. Netzer 1981c:
51).
U pon the evidence of the structures themselves, it should be noted that they differ
from later synagogues in plan, function and decoration. First, from the architectural
point of view no new conceptions in construction have been discerned (also C hiat
1981: 54-56), but the impression is rather one of local extem porization. Second,
these structures only existed for a short time in the first century C E , and were never
built again, except at C apernaum . O nly in the case of the first century building
under a later synagogue at C apernaum can one assume that it is a synagogue, due
to its location. T hird, these assembly halls lack the most im portant feature of the
later synagogue: the T orah shrine. Finally, during the first century the Tem ple in
Jerusalem was still the centre for worship and ritual for the entire Jew ish com m unity
88 JEW ISH ART A N D ARCHAEOLO GY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIOD
in Ju d e a and the D iaspora where they could participate in the ceremonies, in the
teaching of the Law conducted in the Tem ple courtyards, and could settle ad­
m inistrative questions in the Tem ple courts. These local centres of worship probably
existed as com m unity assembly halls, where service would be conducted probably
only on Sabbaths and feast days (see Chap. V II, pp. 138-139).
The assembly structures of the Zealots at the fortresses of M asada, H erodium and
G am la probably served as local assembly halls during the years of the revolt against
Rom e, a time during which it was extremely difficult for their congregations to
travel to Jerusalem in order to participate in Tem ple worship. At the same time as
these structures were serving as small com m unity centres, worship presum ably was
also being conducted in them , although no convincing proof of this supposition has
been found. W ith the destruction of the Tem ple, local structures began to flourish
which, of necessity having to replace the national centre, the Tem ple in Jerusalem ,
became sites of local worship and com m unity centres. In these halls reading of the
T orah was emphasized, and thus the distinctive feature of the later synagogues$ the
T orah shrine, emerges.
CHAPTER FOUR
FU N E R A R Y C U S T O M S A N D A R T
A) B u r ia l C u sto m s of t h e S econd T em ple P e r io d
Two cemeteries of the Second Tem ple period in Jerusalem (Avigad 1950-51;
R ahm ani 1981; K loner 1980) and Jericho (Hachlili 1980a; Hachlili & Killebrew
1981, 1983a) constitute our data for funerary customs and art. They were lbcated
outside the town limits, in accordance with Jew ish law (M. Baba Bathra 2, 9). The
Jerusalem cemetery consisted of tombs surrounding the walls of the city, in three
m ajor areas of concentration to the north, south and east (K loner 1980a: 259-268)
and the Jericho cemetery was located outside the town, on the hills flanking the J o r ­
dan Valley (PI. 12).
T he Jerusalem necropolis developed as the result of tombs being random ly scat­
tered wherever the rock was soft and could be easily hewn. Roads and paths led to
the tombs, and plants and trees landscaped the surroundings. Families purchased
burial plots presum ably according to their m eans. Several of the loculi tombs have
richly ornam ented facades and a group of m onum ental rock-hewn tombs, the
K idron Valley tombs, probably belonging to prom inent Jerusalem families, have a
m em orial or nefesh in the shape of a pyram id or tholus standing above the ground.
In spite of the lavish ornam entation, burial was probably similar to that of the
simpler, undecorated loculi tombs. A part from two tombs where sarcophagi were
discovered, all were found in a disturbed, robbed state. Several crowded burial
quarters exist in the present-day areas of M ount Scopus, D om inus Flevit and French
Hill (Kloner 1980a: 268).
A large necropolis at Jericho with approxim ately fifty tombs, containing either
prim ary burials in wooden coffins or secondary collected bone burials in ossuaries,
was excavated, and approxim ately 75 robbed tombs were surveyed (Hachlili 1979a;
1980).
T he tombs found in these two cemeteries m ay be divided into two types: the first
consists of rock-hewn loculi tombs and the second type is a m onum ental tom b which
is rock-hewn and has a m em orial or nefesh standing next to or above it. Two basic
tomb plans exist; one is called the loculi type (kokhim) and the other is the arcosolia
type. Some tombs are equipped solely with a burial room. Both types of plans are
found in the Jerusalem necropolis, but the Jericho cemetery consists of loculi tombs
90 JEW ISH ART A ND ARCHAEOLOGY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIOD
only which are hewn into the hillsides (Pl. 12), serving as family tombs but with pro­
vision for separate burial of each individual.
The form of the loculi tomb (fig. 1) consists of a square burial cham ber, often with
a pit dug into its floor to enable a m an to stand upright. The edge of the pit forms
FUNERARY CUSTOM S A ND ART 91
lb . T h e Jericho G oliath Loculi T om b Plan.
three or four benches, on each side of the tomb. From one to three arched loculi 1
m. high and 2 m. long (kokhim) are hewn into three walls, the entrance wall excepted.
T he entrance to the tom b is square; in Jerusalem it sometimes has a forecourt and
a m oulded facade (Avigad 1950-1951: 98, fig. 3) or an ornam ental facade (see
pp. 104-106). It is closed either by a rectangular blocking stone, sometimes in the
shape of a large “ stopper,” or by m udbricks and small stones. Occasionally, single-
loculus tombs were constructed.
92 JEW ISH ART AND ARCH AEOLOGY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIOD
T he evidence from Jericho proves conclusively that loculi tombs were first
designed and used for prim ary, that is, perm anent, burial in coffins. This is in­
dicated by the length of the kokh (ca. 2m. ) , which is the length of a coffin. T he same
tom b plan continued to be used in the case of ossuary burials (also K loner 1980a:
218-228). In previous research scholars have claimed that the kokh was “ intim ately”
connected with secondary burial (M eyers 1971: 64-69; Avigad 1976: 259). If this
was the case and the loculi tom b had been designed for 70 cm.-long ossuaries there
would have been no need to dig a 2 m .‫־‬long kokh.
Few tombs have a courtyard such as that of the m onum ental tom b at Jericho (Fig.
lb)(H achlili 1979; Hachlili and Killebrew 1983a: 112-113). The courtyard was used
probably for m ourning and for m em orial services similar to the “ eulogy place”
m entioned in Jew ish sources (B . Baba Bathra. 100b; also Safrai 1976: 779). Similar
courtyards with benches are known from other contem porary Jerusalem m onum en­
tal tombs but are usually smaller in size and lack the ritual bath (miqveh) found here
(K loner 1980a: 210, 244). Courtyards with benches dating to the third century are
also found at Beth Shecarim and probably served a similar purpose (Avigad 1976:
41-45, 81-82, figs. 23-24, 35, 61, Pl. X X X : 1).
T he origin of the plan for the rock-cut loculi tom b of the Second Tem ple period
in Ju d e a is to be sought in Egypt, particularly in Leontopolis, from as early as
H asm onean times (Ant. X III 63, 67; X IV , 99, 131-133) (Hachlili and Killebrew
1983a: 110-112; for a sum m ary of theories on the origin of the loculi tombs see
K loner 1980a: 228-231).
In some Jerusalem tombs another type of burial is found: the arcosolia which is
a bench-like aperture with an arched ceiling hewn into the length of the wall. The
arcosolia is a later type of burial, in addition to comm on loculi tom b, in use at the
end of the Second Tem ple period. In the Beth Shecarim catacombs the arcosolia was
usually reserved for m ore expensive burials. In several cases the deceased was inter­
red in a trough grave hewn in the arcosolium. From the third century on, the trough
grave became the prevalent type of burial (Avigad 1976: 259).
1) Burial Types
Two distinctly different types of loculi tom b burials, prim ary and secondary, were
discovered during the excavations in the Jericho cemetery. They can be classified
typologically, chronologically and stratigraphically into prim ary burials in wooden
coffins (type 1) and secondary burials of collected bones which were either placed
in individual ossuaries (type 2a), or piled in heaps (type 2b) (but see Bennet
1965:532-534).
FUNERARY CUSTOM S AND ART 93
Type 1 : Primary Burial in wooden coffins is the earliest type of burial in the Jericho
cemetery. T he coffins were placed in the rock-cut loculi tombs, each loculus holding
one wooden coffin (with the exception of one loculus which held two coffins, one con­
taining a wom an and the other her child)(fig. 2). The deceased were evidently
brought to the cemetery inside their coffins. The coffin itself would be pushed
through the entrance of the tom b, although it was necessary to remove the gabled
lid in order that the coffin would fit. Once inside the tom b, thé lid was securely
placed on the coffin which was then deposited in the loculus; only when all loculi
were filled, would further coffins be placed on the benches or in the pit.
Coffins took the form of a wooden chest with a post at each corner, and were con­
structed by m eans of m ortising. Several types of wood were used in the construction
of the coffin: the most comm on types were sycamore, C hrist-thorn and cypress. The
lid of the chest was usually gabled and consisted of one plank on each side and a
pedim ent at each end (Fig. 3). O ne well-preserved example, however, has a hinged
lid. Iron nails and knobs found with the coffins were probably used only for decora­
tion or structural support. The coffins were decorated with painted red and black
geometric patterns and designs.
C ontem porary coffins in Israel, different in their construction and decoration
were found in tombs near cEn-Gedi, in a Jericho tom b , and in the Q um ran
cemetery (de V aux 1973: 46-47) (Hachlili & Killebrew 1983a: 115). Earlier examples
of similar wooden coffins, dating to the fourth century BCE have survived in Egypt
and South Russia (W atzinger 1905).
Manner of Burial·. All the bodies were extended, face upwards, in the coffin, usually
with the head to one side and hands close to the side of the body (fig. 2). M ost coffins
contain one individual, but sometimes a m other and small child (infant or foetus)
are found together in a coffin. There are several occurrences where one or two
bodies have been added to a coffin that already contained an individual, but no more
than three bodies have ever been found in any one coffin. It is probable that a later
body was placed in the same coffin because the individual was related to the
previously interred person (Semahot 13, 8 in Zlotnick 1966: 84, 164).
O rientation of the bodies in the kokh and tomb does not seem to be significant as
the heads face various directions (fig. 2). No special m arks were found on the coffins
which m ight have indicated in which direction the head should be oriented in the
loculus. This is in contrast to the Q um ran cemetery, where the orientation of most
of the tombs is consistent—generally north-south (de V aux 1973: 46; Bar Adon
1977: 22).
The discovery of several coins inside skulls may indicate that coins had been
placed in the m outh of the deceased (Hachlili and Killebrew 1983b). In Jericho the
JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIO D FUNERARY CUSTOM S AND ART 95

rem ains of twig-filled leather mattresses found in some of the coffins attest to the fact
that the deceased had been placed upon them . Possibly the deceased was brought
up to the tom b on a m attress and then placed inside the coffin. A nother possible ex­
planation is that an individual who died in his home was felt to have contam inated
his m attress, and, instead of its being burned, the m attress was buried with the de­
ceased in the coffin.
The im print of woven m aterial found on several bones and a skull suggests that
the body was wrapped in a shroud.
It should be noted that the wooden coffins in Jericho were used for prim ary burials
only and never as containers for secondary burials (cf. Avigad et al. 1962: 180 where
wooden coffins at cEn-Gedi were reused as ossuaries).
Grave Goods: In most of the coffin tombs, grave goods consisting of both personal
possessions and objects of daily use were found with the deceased, usually placed
near either the head or the feet. Found only with women and children, they include
wooden objects such as bowls, spatulas and beads, and a glass amphoriskos. Leather
sandals were also commonly found, placed at the head of the deceased inside the cof­
fin. Objects of daily use were found on the floor or in the pit of the tom b and storage
jars were placed outside the entrance to the tomb.

Type 2: Secondary Burial in Ossuaries: This type was at first practiced only in Jerusalem
but later spread to other parts of the Land of Israel (R ahm ani 1982: 109). From the
li₪MiK finds and stratigraphy of the ossuary burials in Jericho (but see Bennet 1965:532-34)
it is clear that they post-date coffin burials. Ossuaries were hewn from one large block
2. T om b with C offin Burials, Jericho. of limestone usually in the shape of a small, rectangular box resting on four low legs,
and m easuring ca. 60 x 35 x 30 cm. for adults, and less for children. A stone lid—
flat, slightly curved or gabled—was placed on top. The ossuaries were often
decorated (Pis. 17, 18, pp. 110-115). They do not show any influence on them of
wooden coffin design, neither in construction nor in decoration. Only a few pottery
ossuaries, but none of wood, have been discovered until now.
Manner of Burial: The ossuaries were placed in the loculi or on the benches. Often
two ossuaries would be stacked one above the other or placed next to each other
(Hachlili 1978: 45; K loner 1980a: Pis. 11, 13, 16, 23). In one loculus four ossuaries
were found together (fig. 4; in the Goliath tom b at Jericho) (Hachlili 1979: 56-57).
The occupants of ossuaries placed in the same loculus were usually related to each
other, as can be concluded from the inscriptions found on the ossuaries. Ossuaries
are sometimes found on the benches or floor even though the tom b contains empty
loculi: this indicates that ossuary burial did not develop due to a necessity of saving
space.
96 JEW ISH ART A N D ARCHAEOLOGY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIOD
4. Four O ssuaries in O n e L oculus, Jericho.
T he bodies were prepared for secondary burial by being first buried in a prim ary
burial to allow the flesh to decay until only the bones rem ained (but see Hachlili &
Killebrew 1983a: 119). It has been claimed that the body was placed in the loculus
of the family tom b and that after a year the relatives of the deceased would come
to gather the bones and put them in the ossuary (R ahm ani 1961: 117-118; 1978:
104; K loner 1980a: 226-227, 248-252). In Jerusalem tombs, bones have been found
inside loculi, and sometimes even under ossuaries (K loner 1980a: 225). However,
up to now no such evidence has been found in the Jericho cemetery.
FUNERARY CUSTOM S AND ART 97
The bones were placed inside the ossuary in a custom ary order: long bones
lengthwise at the bottom with the bones of the arm s and hands on one side and those
of the legs and feet on the other side. The rem aining bones of the body were placed
on top of them and the skull was placed on top of all the bones at one end (Pl. 13).
Usually the bones of one individual were placed in the ossuary, but there are several
occurrences of more than one individual being interred in one ossuary: small
children were buried with their m others, three children were placed together, or two
adults were interred together (Hachlili 1979: Table 1; Hachlili & Sm ith 1979: 67).
It is clear that the relatives were careful to place the deceased in the correct
ossuary. At Jericho inscriptions m entioning the nam e and occasionally the age
always correspond to the sex and age of the individual found inside the ossuary
(Hachlili & Smith 1979); hence the bodies m ust have been carefully labelled during
the period in which they were left to decompose.
Grave Goods discovered with ossuary burial tombs include unguentaria, bowls,
H erodian lam ps and cooking pots, and glass vessels and were identical to those used
in daily life. No personal objects were found inside the ossuaries. They were usually
placed close to the ossuaries or in the pit. In one Jericho loculus, two ossuaries were
stacked one above the other together with an inscribed funerary bowl (Pl.
15)(Hachlili 1978: 48-49). It is noteworthy that some of the objects in the tombs were
defective at the time of their placement, for example cooking pots were cracked, and
pottery was left in fragments. This raises the question w hether it was considered
economically preferable to place a defective item in the tom b or whether the act was
symbolic (K loner 1980a: 257; Hachlili & Killebrew 1983a: 121, note 16).
Several explanations have been proposed regarding the purpose of these vessels
inside the tom b. Storage jars, some found in situ, were often placed outside the en­
trance of coffin tombs in Jericho and m ay have contained water for purification.
Small vessels such as juglets and bottles were apparently used for funerary oint­
ments. Lam ps found in the tombs m ay have been used to illum inate the tom b for
visitors or m ay have been lit and placed at the head of the deceased out of respect.
The practice of placing burial gifts with the dead was widespread throughout the
Hellenistic and Sem itic-Rom an pagan worlds, but the Jew s, although following the
custom, gave it their own interpretation by ignoring the connotation of an offering
to the dead for their use in the afterlife. Possibly Jew s placed personal belongings
in the tom b of the deceased because the scene aroused the grief of the onlookers.
2) Inscriptions on Ossuaries
T he Second Tem ple period onom asticon has been greatly enriched in recent years
by incised, scratched or written inscriptions which have been discovered on
98 JEW ISH ART A N D ARCHAEO LO GY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIO D
5. T h e Inscribed Bowl: a) Interior; b) Exterior. Jericho.
ossuaries. No particular place was reserved for the inscriptions and they are found
on the front, back, sides anddid. Q uite often the inscription is w ritten m ore than
once on the same ossuary and some are bilingual, w ritten in Jew ish and Greek
script. The inscription usually includes the nam e of the interred and his family rela­
tionships (Pis. 14, 19), but in several cases additional inform ation is also given, such
as place of origin and age (Hachlili 1978: 48-49), or status, for example “ freedm an”
(Hachlili 1979: 33). An abecedary, consisting of the first eight letters of the Greek
alphabet, appears written in charcoal upon a re-used ossuary lid (Hachlili 1979: 47‫־‬
48; 1984a). A unique inscribed funerary bowl, found in an ossuary tom b in Jericho
FU NERARY CUSTOM S AN D ART 99
(Hachlili 1978) m entions a three-generation family which originated in Jerusalem ,
but probably lived, died and was buried in Jericho (fig. 5a, b; Pl. 15). In Jerusalem
most of the inscriptions consist of nam es and family relationships. Sometimes a pro­
fession, like that of “ Simon the m aster bu ild er,” appears, or an A ram aic inscription
appears in archaic Hebrew script (such as the A bba cave inscription (Naveh 1973)).
An intriguing aspect of the inscriptions is the identity of their authors. They were
probably professional scribes or family m em bers, but the latter seems m ore likely
because of the great variety of hands that are evident in the execution of these in­
scriptions.
A consideration of the inscriptions leads us to conclude that first, ossuary tombs
contained at the most three generations of a particular family; second, the recur­
rence of names is common in successive generations of a family (Hachlili 1979: 53;
1984b: 188-211) and third, Jew ish families were literate and bilingual in Aram aic
or H ebrew , and Greek.
T he m ore personal duties associated with the burial of the deceased, such as carry­
ing the coffin and its orderly placement in the tom b, the collecting of bones and lay­
ing them in the ossuaries, m ourning, and the writing of inscriptions, were probably
carried out by relatives and friends of the deceased (see Josephus Against Apion II,
205). C ontem porary and later sources m ention charitable societies, the HeverHr, who
probably dealt with other duties involved in the preparation of the body for burial
(see Semahot 12, 4-5 in Zlotnick 1966: 80-81; Safrai 1976: 775).
3) Dating
Dates for the burial customs are still the subject of debate. Nevertheless, the
Jericho cemetery can provide a chronology for the two different types of burials
(Hachlili & Killebrew 1983a: 124-125): prim ary burials in coffins can be dated to the
m id-first century BCE-ca. 10 CE, and secondary burials in ossuaries imm ediately
followed, dating to the period ca. 10 CE-68 CE. These dates are based on coins
found in the tombs, the ossuary inscription m entioning queen A grippina (Hachlili
1979: 60-62) and other ossuary inscriptions, the com parative stratigraphy of the
tombs, as well as the pottery. R ahm ani (1966:116; 1977:24-25; 1981: 175) dates the
practice of secondary burials in ossuaries in Jerusalem to 30/20 BCE-70 CE, conti­
nuing sporadically until ca. 135 CE or the third century (also K loner 1980a: 252‫־‬
253). In the light of the new discoveries in the Jericho cemetery, which provide ab­
solute chronology for ossuary burials, previous dates given for the beginning of
ossuary burials in Jerusalem should now be considered accordingly.
100 JEW ISH ART A N D ARCHAEOLOGY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIO D
4) Conclusions
Biblical references never m ention the word coffin (^aron) except in the case of
Joseph (Gen. 50:26) who died in Egypt and whose rem ains were transported to C a­
naan in a coffin (see also discussion in Hachlili 1979: 55). Iron Age archaeological
evidence gives no indication that coffins were used then by the Israelites, even
though coffins are known from this period in the Egyptian and Phoenician world.
The isolated case of Joseph, therefore, m ight be explained as simply following the
Egyptian burial practices of his time. The Biblical concept of burial was “ to be
buried with your people,” perhaps indicating a form of tribal burial. After the settle­
m ent of the Land of Israel by the Israelite tribes, the custom became one of being
buried in a family tom b (“ to sleep w ith” or “ be gathered unto your fathers’
ancestors” ). Thus already by that time the concept of family burial was strong.
T he excavations in the extended Jerusalem necropolis and the Jericho cemetery
reveal that two completely different burial customs, one chronologically following
the other, were practiced by Jews of the Second Tem ple period. The earlier custom
(first century BCE) which first appears am ong Jew s at this time is of a prim ary in-
-dividual burial in a wooden coffin. In Jerusalem indications of prim ary burial have
been found in m any tombs (Kloner 1980a: 225).
Jew ish burial practices of the late Second Tem ple period reveal a corresponding
im portance placed on both the individual and the family. This is reflected in the plan
of the loculi tom b, which provided for individual burial of coffins or ossuaries in
separate loculi while at the same time allowing a family to be buried together in the
same tomb. T he entire population and not just the upper classes (as in the Israelite
period) were given individual burials. This practice is probably related to the in­
creasing im portance placed on the individual in contem porary Hellenistic society,
and to the Jew ish belief in individual resurrection of the body. This belief is reflected
in sources dating as early as the second century BCE (R ahm ani 1961: 117-118, n.
6)·
T he second type of burial found in Jerusalem and in the Jericho cemetery,
chronologically following the coffin burials, is conscious secondary burial of the
bones either placed in individual ossuaries or in com m unal burials in loculi or pits
(Hachlili & Killebrew 1983a: 123-124), which was also common in burials of the First
Tem ple and Hellenistic periods. This complete change in burial customs occurs
during the beginning of the first century C E simultaneously with a change in the
political status of Ju d ea, which now became a R om an province. U p to now no
theory has been able to account for this drastic change in burial customs; unfor­
tunately, all sources dealing with ossilegium describe only the custom itself without
FUNERARY CUSTOM S AND ART 101
m entioning the reasons for its sudden appearance. W hereas M eyers (1971) attem pts
to explain ossilegium as a continuation of earlier, local customs, R ahm ani
(1961:117-118, nn. 6, 7; 1981:175-177) proposes that ossuary burial began as an at­
tem pt to expiate sins through the decay of the flesh, which would then allow resur­
rection of the purified physical individual. R ah m an i’s suggestion seems to be the
most plausible, particularly in view of the historical and social events of the period.
To sum up, what is most extraordinary in the Jew ish burial customs of the Second
Tem ple period is the astonishing fact that within a comparatively short space of time
burial practices, usually am ong the most conservative customs in a society, under­
went rapid changes. Loculi tombs appear with prim ary coffin burials, and within
a century secondary burials in ossuaries in similar loculi tombs becomes the
prevalent custom, a practice which lacks parallels with any other contem porary
neighbouring culture. At the same tim e, these customs were short-lived and show
little affinity with either the earlier Israelite customs or the later Jew ish rituals of
Late A ntiquity which contain only traces of these Second Tem ple period customs.
Archaeological investigation has been unable, m oreover, to uncover the causes for
these ossuary burial innovations. It m ay be conjectured that the Jew s blam ed their
loss of independence and their state on their sinful behaviour; the custom of secon­
dary burial of the bones, in ossuaries, after decay of the flesh, became a way to ex­
piate sins.
5) Other Burial Customs
Two completely contrasting Jew ish tom b forms and burial customs are en­
countered in the cemeteries of Q um ran and cEn-el Guw eir belonging to the Second
Tem ple period Jew ish sect of the Essenes in the Dead Sea area; and in the second-
fourth century burials in the Jew ish necropolis at Beth Shecarim .
The Essene Burial Customs in the Cemeteries of Qumran and cEn el-Guweir
O ne sect of Jews during the first century CE, the Essenes, practiced a completely
different prim ary burial in individual graves as evidenced by their cemeteries at
Q um ran and cEn el‫־‬Guweir. The m ain cemetery of Q um ran is located east of the
settlement and contains about 1,100 graves (de V aux 1973: 46). Its organized plan
consists of rows of single graves, usually oriented north-south. The graves are
m arked by oval-shaped heaps of stones placed on the surface. Several graves con­
tained signs of wooden coffins (de V aux 1973: 46-47). M ost of the excavated tombs
contained individual burials; male interm ents only were found in the m ain cemetery
102 JEW ISH ART A N D ARCH AEOLOGY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIOD
(de V aux 1973: 46, Pis. X X V -X X V I; 1953: 102, fig. 5, Pis. 4b, 5a, 5b; Bar-Adon
1977:12, 16, figs. 19-20). O n the outskirts of this cemetery and in the smaller
cemeteries of Q um ran, a few females and children were interred (de V aux 1973:47,
57-58; 1956: 569, 575). The large num ber of males found in these graves compared
to the small num ber of women and children points to the im portance placed on
celibacy in this com m unity (Cross 1961: 97-98).
The Essene burial practices have a few elements in common with those of the
Jerusalem and Jericho cemeteries. T he coffin burials at Q um ran, though later in
date, are comparable to those found at Jericho. Grave goods were discovered with
women and children at Q um ran and cEn el‫־‬Guweir, as well as rem ains of cloth (in­
dicating that the dead had been wrapped in shrouds), and mattresses (de V aux
1973:47, Bar-Adon 1977: 22). Broken storage jars were discovered on top of the
graves at cEn el-Guweir (Bar-Adon 1977:16, figs. 21:1-3, 22-23) and Q um ran (de
V aux 1953: 103, figs. 2:5 and Pl. V I), probably a parallel to the custom of placing
storage jars outside the tombs at Jericho.
The contrasts in these burial practices indicate differences in religious philosophy
towards the dead am ong the Jew s of this time and reflects the severance of the
Essenes from Judaism (de V aux 1973: 126-138; Cross 1961: 5 Iff.; Y adin 1983: 304-
305). Single-person burials at Q um ran and cEn el-Guweir cemeteries stress the im ­
portance of the individual, rather than the family.
The Beth Shecarim Necropolis
The Jew ish necropolis at Beth Shecarim was the central burial ground for Jews
from the Land of Israel and the neighbouring areas. T he m ajority of the catacombs
date to the third-fourth centuries. Beth Shecarim was expanded after the death of
R abbi Ju d a h in the latter part of the third century. The terminus ante quem for the
catacombs is the date of their destruction in the year 352 CE (Avigad 1976: 260).
Burial Manner
T he Beth Shecarim burial place consists of catacombs, with a frontal courtyard
and portals constructed of stone doors im itating wooden doors with nails (M azar
1973: Plan 1-5; Pl VI; Avigad; 1976: figs. 3-5; Pis. 25:1; 27:2; 28:1). Several burial
halls spaced out along a corridor were hewn in the rock. The graves were m ainly
loculi or arcosolia types and it is clear that burial customs, that is prim ary inhum a­
tion in arcosolia, coffins and sarcophagi, have little in comm on with those of the Sec­
ond Tem ple period. O n the walls were carved, painted or incised decoration, in a
popular art style. Decorated m arble or clay sarcophagi contained the prim ary
FUNERARY CUSTOM S A ND ART 103
burials of Jew s from the Land of Israel or the reinterred rem ains of D iaspora Jews
(M azar 1973; Avigad 1976). By this time burial had become a commercialized,
public enterprise, and was directed apparently by the burial society (Hevrah Kadisha)
who sold burial places to any purchaser (Avigad 1976: 253, 265).
The Inscriptions
T he A ram aic, Hebrew and Greek irfscriptions found in these tombs m ainly record
the names of the tomb owners; sometimes a sentim ent is added. Longer inscriptions
are w ritten on the walls. T heir purpose was to identify the graves of the deceased
for visitors (Schwabe and Lifshitz 1974: 219). The inscriptions found at Beth
Shecarim indicate that the interred were people of im portance such as rabbis, public
officers, m erchants, craftsmen, and scribes.
6) Reinterment
A differentiation m ust be m ade between the custom of secondary burial in
ossuaries and the custom of D iaspora Jews being reinterred in the Land of Israel.
Scholars (M eyers 1971: 72-79) have claimed that ossuaries contained the bones of
D iaspora Jew s, citing inscriptions m entioning a person’s origin outside of the Land
of Israel as proof. W hat the inscriptions actually indicate is that the deceased had
belonged to a com m unity of Jews residing in Jerusalem who were of D iaspora origin
(R ahm ani 1977: 28 and nn. 123-124). Not until the third century CE did Jew s begin
to practice the custom of reinterm ent in the Land of Israel (Gafni 1981), and
especially abundant evidence for this practice is to be seen in the Beth Shecarim
cemetery (Schwabe & Lifshitz 1974:219).
B) F unerary A rt
Funerary art of the Second Tem ple period is a rich and varied art. It consists of
ornam entation of tom b facades, sarcophagi and ossuaries, as well as wall paintings
and graffiti.
1) Tomb Decoration
T he composite style, an am algam ation of stylistic features influenced by
Hellenistic-Rom an architecture and by O riental elements, is characteristic of or­
nam ented tombs in Jerusalem , and its execution is typical generally of Jew ish art
of the Second Tem ple period. This composite style is found on:
104 JEW ISH ART A N D ARCHAEOLOGY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIO D FUNERARY CUSTOMS A N D ART 105

a) Facade ornam ented tombs with either i) a Doric frieze together with Ionic col­
um ns, or ii) an ornate gable.
T he most common of the tom b entablatures consists of a Doric frieze, sometimes
with an addition in the centre and around the entrance as at the Tom b of the Kings,
and usually combined with Ionic columns. T he gable ornam ent is filled with plant
motifs, consisting of a central focus which spreads to both sides of the triangle. The
pedim ent is completely filled in accordance with the O riental element of horror vacui.
b) M onum ental tombs exhibiting a m ixture of classical features and Egyptian
pyram ids and cornices.
The ornam entation of the m onum ental tombs reveals the existence of a composite
style which sometimes combines the classical and O riental styles, as in the tom b of
Zachariah (Pl. 16), or even is a combination of three styles, as in the case of the
m onum ent of Absalom, which has a Doric frieze, Ionic capitals and an Egyptian
cornice.

a) Tombs with Ornamented Facades (Avigad 1950-1951; 1956; 1975)

i) Three rock hewn tombs portray a com bination of features which characterize
Jew ish funerary art in Jerusalem . Each has a Doric frieze and Ionic columns with
an unusual addition: a distyle in antis entrance with Ionic columns. 6. U m m el‫־‬cA m ed T om b.
Umm el cAmed (fig. 6) has a Doric metope frieze containing rosettes, above which
is a row of dentils which is an Ionic feature. Below it are Doric guttae. The a r­
chitrave is relatively low in relation to the frieze, which is characteristic of Hellenistic
architecture. The rock face of the facade is carved with ashlar stone decoration.
The Frieze tomb (fig. 7) has a Doric metope frieze with rosettes flanking a central
wreath. Surm ounting it is an elaborately decorated C orinthian cornice, which is
characteristic of R om an architecture, usually m ore elaborately ornam ented than
Hellenistic architecture.
The Tomb of the Kings (K on 1947) has a richly decorated facade. T he opening is
distyle in antis, with Ionic columns. Enclosing this facade is an unfinished decorative
band with leaves, fruit and pine cones with a rosette in the centre. Surm ounting it
is a Doric frieze whose central m otif is a triple bunch of grapes flanked by wreaths
and acanthus (fig. 8). T he impressively elaborate composite style of this tom b’s
facade is unique.
ii) Several tombs have facades decorated with ornam ented gables.
The Tomb of the Sanhedrin has an entrance decorated with a gable and acroteria. The
gable is filled with acanthus leaves am ong which fruit are placed.
7. Frieze T om b. 8. R estored Facade o f the “ T om b o f the K in g s”
106 JEW ISH ART A ND ARCHAEOLOGY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIOD
9. T h e G rapes T om b.
10. T h e G able o f the T om b o f Jehoshaphat.
The Grapes Tomb (fig. 9) has a similar gable and acroteria over the entrance. The
pedim ent is decorated with vine branches. Two bunches of grapes flank the central
rosette.
The Tomb of Jehoshaphat, which is adjacent to the Absalom m onum ent, has a flatly
carved gabled facade and acroteria. The pedim ent is decorated with a highly stylized
design of branches creating medallions which are filled with fruit. The branches
grow out of a central acanthus leaf (fig. 10).
FUNERARY CUSTOMS AND ART 107
b) Monumental Tombs
M onum ental tombs are characterized by a partly rock-hewn and partly built free­
standing m onum ent either above or next to the cham ber and loculi tomb. The
m onum ent usually has a pyram id or tholus surm ounting a cube-shaped base. A
group of m onum ental tombs, located in the K idron Valley (Avigad 1954) from south
to north (fig. 11) consist of the Tom b of Zachariah (late first century CE), the Bene
H ezir tom b (dated to the H asm onean period—early first century BCE), and the A b­
salom tom b (first century CE) with its adjacent Tom b of Jehoshaphat. All the tomb
nam es, except for that of the Bene H ezir, are later folklore appendages.
The Bene Hezir tomb is the earliest of the tombs and probably belongs to the
H asm onean period (early first century BCE). It is a rock-hewn tom b with chambers
and loculi and an entrance hall with a decorated facade. Its facade is distyle in antis,
with two Doric columns crowned by a Doric frieze (fig. 12). A Hebrew inscription
is incised on the architrave and m entions the “ priests of Bene H e z ir.” This m onu­
m ent is not only chronologically earlier than the others, but also its ornam entation
differs in that it is not in the composite style characteristic of the other Jew ish tomb
facades.
The Tomb of Zachariah (PL 16) is a free-standing m onum ent with a small rock-hewn
cham ber. It consists of a cube-shaped building surm ounted by a pyram id and is
decorated with an Egyptian cornice carried on engaged Ionic columns with pillars
in the corners. This m onum ent was intended to be a m em orial, a nefesh, either of
the Bene H ezir tomb or of a nearby unfinished tomb.
The Monument of Absalom and the Cave of Jehoshaphat is a family tomb complex
with m any rock-hewn chambers (Avigad 1954b: fig. 51). T he m onum ent has a lower
rock-hewn cube and an upper drum and cone tu ilt of ashlar stones. The lower cube
is decorated with engaged Ionic columns bearing a Doric frieze and an Egyptian cor­
nice. The drum and conical roof are crowned by a petalled flower (fig. 13). T he u p ­
per built part is the nefesh (Avigad 1954b: figs. 69-70).
The two free-standing m onum ents of Zachariah and Absalom are m agnificent ex­
amples of the composite style of Jew ish art which consists of a com bination of com­
m on Ionic and Doric styles together with an Egyptian cornice and pyram id. Similar
m onum ental tombs which combine both a tom b and a nefesh m em orial have been
found in the following tombs of Jerusalem :
The Tomb of the Kings (fig. 8) has been identified as the tom b of Helene, Q ueen
of Adiabene, who settled in Jerusalem after she and her family converted to
Judaism . They were buried here in ca. 50 CE. Situated north of the present day Old
City, the tom b is large and impressive. It has a rock-hewn court, staircase, an or-
108 JEW ISH ART A ND ARCHAEOLOGY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIOD FUNERARY CUSTOM S AND ART 109

·A

B B

11. T h e K idron V alley M onum ental T om bs.

nam ented facade and chambers with niches and arcosolia. T hree small pyram ids
similar to those in the K idron Valley probably stood on top of the tom b (described
by Josephus in Ant. X X , 4, 5).
Jason’s Tomb in the western part of m odern Jerusalem is ,named after the person
m entioned in the inscription found there. It has three courts and two cham bers, one
of which has loculi, and a facade (which is mono stylos in antis) with one column
only. The tom b is topped by a pyram id. It also bears wall carvings (see p. 238). It
is dated to the H asm onean period, first century BCE (R ahm ani 1967).
The Tomb of the Family of Herod (fig. 14) (adjacent to the m odern K ing D avid hotel,
west of the O ld City). R em ains of what is conjectured to be a m onum ent stand in
front of the entrance. T he plan is different from that in the other tombs (see p. 57 for
N etzer’s proposal of H ero d ’s tom b in Jerusalem ).
 110 JEW ISH ART A N D ARCH AEOLOGY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIO D
14. T om b o f H ero d ’s Fam ily.
Jew ish funerary art as expressed in ornam ented tombs reflects a Hellenistic tradi­
tion, executed locally.
2) Ossuary Ornamentation
O f all the ossuaries found in Jerusalem , most are u n d e rr a te d , whereas in Jericho
most are decorated. O rnam entation of ossuaries has been recently comprehensively
researched by R ahm ani (1977) and Figueras (1983).
T he repertoire of motifs decorating ossuaries is quite num erous (about 35 motifs
were gathered by R ahm ani and Figueras), and consists of plant, geometric and a r­
chitectural motifs. These motifs are similar to those appearing in other arts of the
Second Tem ple period (pp. 79-82). However, the variation on each m otif is greater,
probably due to the large quantity of ossuaries found (see for instance Figueras 1983:
Pis. 9-10 for rosettes and PI. 30 for am phorae). O ther architectural patterns may
also be added to the repertoire and include those generally associated with tombs,
FUNERARY CUSTOM S AND ART Ill
for example, the column pyram id (Hachlili 1981) and facades. Stone ossuary
workshops and artists probably had a repertoire, presum ably in the form of a pattern
book, to which reference could be repeatedly m ade.
The ornam entation is carved into the soft stone of the ossuaries with the aid of
tools such as a ruler and compass. Few ossuaries are painted. The commonest type
of ossuary ornam entation is a scheme consisting of a frame of zigzag lines, incised
or chip-carved, within two straight lines. This frame is divided usually into two, and
sometimes m ore, metopes which are filled generally with six-petalled rosettes (figs.
15-17; PI. 17a, b). This general scheme is based on the m etope frieze common in
tom b facade decoration. It is a traditional, fully developed O riental geometric form
(Avi-Yonah 1981a: 96-97).
Three general types of ossuary ornam entation can be distinguished (Figueras,
1983: 26, PI. 4, proposes eight types but, as the distinctions are confused, they can­
not be considered separate types):
a) Two symmetrical rosettes enclosed in a frame constitute the standard type of
ossuary decoration. The variety of rosette styles is extensive, from simple, incised
six-petalled rosettes (fig. 15a; PI. 17a) to chip-carved (fig. 15a; PI. 18), and to
elaborately designed and executed rosettes (Goodenough 1953: figs. 180, 193, 211;
R ahm ani 1982: 116; see also Figueras 1983: Pis. 9-10, chart of rosettes). T he m a­
jority of the decorated ossuaries have depictions of two or m ore rosettes.
b) A nother group of ossuaries portrays the standard rosettes flanking a central
m otif consisting of various patterns, for instance a tom b facade (fig. 16b), a column
(PI. 17b) or an am phorae (Figueras 1983: PI. 30).
c) The third group of ossuaries is rendered with a design which covers the entire
front of the ossuary, but lacks rosettes; for instance, the ossuary with an ashlar stone
motif, with arches, columns and with other designs (fig. 15b). Occasionally several
rosettes are incorporated into this general design (Figueras 1983: Pis. 18; 19;
26:134, 144; 28: 380, 566, 576, 580; 29: 172; 30:16; 31:317).
It is very significant that generally, dissimilarly decorated ossuaries are found
within the same tomb, from which it appears that the families chose a differently
decorated ossuary for each m em ber. For example the Jericho “ G oliath” tom b con­
tains twenty-one ossuaries (Hachlili 1979), all of which are different, two being ex­
ceptionally elaborate (PI. 19). In Jerusalem the same phenom enon occurs in a tomb
in Givcat H aM ivtar for instance (Kloner 1980c: figs. 11, 12, 23),although a
preference for a certain lily plant m otif between rosettes m ay be seen. However, the
design and execution of this m otif are different in each case.
Research conducted into these elements of decoration has resulted in a con­
troversy as to their m eaning and interpretation (see the discussion in R ahm ani 1982:
112 JEW ISH ART A N D ARCHAEOLOGY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIOD FUNERARY CUSTOM S A ND ART 113

116-118; Figueras 1983: 78-86). Several scholars m aintain that the ornam ents
possess symbolic value and represent hope of an afterlife, in other words, they are
symbols with emotional content (Goodenough 1965: 70). O thers suggest that
ossuaries as well as the custom of ossuary decoration express the beliefs of Judaeo-
Christians (already rejected by R ahm ani 1982: 116-119). Figueras (1983: 83: 110)
continuing in the vein developed by Goodenough, asserts that the decorated
ossuaries suggest eschatological belief. R ahm ani (1982: 117-118) contends that the
motifs decorating the ossuaries represent actual contem porary funerary art and a r­
chitecture in Jerusalem . In fact, no symbols are depicted on the ossuaries, neither
15. O rnam ented O ssuaries from a W orkshop
are any motifs connected with every-day life or the Tem ple portrayed. R ah m an i’s
contention seems to be the most acceptable. The repertoire of motifs used to
decorate the ossuaries is part of a general ensemble of decorative patterns used in
I I :.‫־‬i t Second Tem ple period art, several of which are found solely in funerary art.
ii, ii ii i r ‫־‬x

cm Ossuary workshops

IT ii‫ ־‬11.— IT ii Evidence for local workshops can be seen in the ornam entation of ossuaries, where
T t.‫־‬Z 3 n r
similar, sometimes even identical, elements are portrayed.
A group of ossuaries, all found in Jerusalem except for one discovered in Jericho,
contains similarities in execution and patterns to such an extent as to suggest that
all examples of the group are from one workshop (R ahm ani 1967: 190). The front
panel of each ossuary is enclosed by two incised frames. T he outer of these two
frames is depicted by closely-spaced carved lines with squares in all four corners.
u .11 11...JI- 3 = 11 II ‫־‬I T T he inner fram e is narrow er and is rendered by groups of two widely-spaced, incised
lines (fig. 16). T he only exception is the Jericho ossuary on which the order of the
frames is reversed: the outer frame has widely-spaced lines and the inner has closely-
spaced vertical lines. Both frames enclose a tripartite decoration of two six-petalled
G1 and chip-carved rosettes flanking a central motif. Noteworthy are the identical
rosettes of the Jericho and Jerusalem ossuaries, the ends of which are joined by six
in leaves with six small circular depressions between the petals. T he sole variation in
11 11 these ossuaries is the design of the central m otif which shows diverse structures:
a) O ne leitm otif consists of two pillars which are depicted on three of the ossuaries
(fig. 16a).
—i 1... i u_
yV b) A nother m otif appearing on six ossuaries is a door or gate which is sometimes
arched, and in one instance is double (fig. 16b). Each gate is flanked by two pillars
similar to a).
c) A m otif probably representing a tomb facade which appears on two ossuaries
from Jerusalem and on an ossuary fragm ent from a Jericho tom b (fig. 16c) consists

16. O rnam ented O ssuaries from a W orkshop

114 JEW ISH ART A N D ARCHAEOLOGY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIO D
of the facade of a structure flanked by two or three pillars of type a) surm ounted by
a gabled roof with a rectangular projection. The gable has a frieze decorated either
with metopes or with a zigzag pattern (fig. 16c). Motifs of both this type and type
b) are flanked by two pillars which in tu rn are flanked by a pair of rosettes.
d) O ne unusual ossuary from Jerusalem which belongs to this group displays
similar frames to those described above. However, it differs in its central motif, it
lacks rosettes and it shows five pillars with arrows filling the spaces between them
(fig. 16d). As m entioned above, all the ossuaries, with the exception of one found
in Jericho, were discovered in the Jerusalem area. The question thus arises whether
the Jericho ossuary was im ported from Jerusalem , and if so, whether all the
ossuaries found in Jericho were m anufactured in Jerusalem workshops and then
transported to Jericho. O n the other hand, it m ay be possible that artisans or ap­
prentices came from Jerusalem to work in Jericho. W hatever the answer, the crafts­
m an who m ade the Jericho ossuary m ust have worked at the same time and in the
same workshop which produced the identical Jerusalem ossuaries.
A second group of ossuaries which, due to similar decorative elements and affinity
of execution, seem to have been produced in one workshop, consists of seven ex­
amples discovered in Jerusalem (fig. 17) (Goodenough 1953: figs. 205, 206, 207;
Figueras 1983: Pis. 33: 420; 34: 422; R ahm ani 1982: 117). The facade decorations
of these ossuaries consist of the following identical elements:
a) A chip-carved zigzag double frame usually incised on all four sides. O cca­
sionally the bottom line of the frame is single.
b) W ithin the frame are depicted two chip-carved six-petalled rosettes.
FUNERARY CUSTOM S AND ART 115
c) In the centre between the rosettes, a stylized depiction of a knife is shown,
which R ahm ani (1982: 115 and fig. on 117) asserts represents stylized palm trees.
An exception to this is one ossuary (Figueras 1983: Pl. 420) which shows a stylized,
geometric design.
d) Several ossuaries show triangles chip-carved onto the bottom frame (fig. 17.
e) An interesting element common to all these ossuaries is the two lines incised
from the lower part of the two rosettes to the bottom fram e, which m ay have func­
tioned as aids to the mason in carving the triangles. Two of the ossuaries are slightly
differently decorated: one (Goodenough 1953: fig. 206) has two twelve-petalled
rosettes, and the other (Figueras 1983: Pl. 33: 420) has a different central motif.
3) Sarcophagus Ornamentation
A few sarcophagi have been found in tombs in Jerusalem . M ade of hard stone,
their ornam entation differs from that of ossuaries in both design and execution,
although the motifs are similar, consisting of plants, rosettes, vine branches and
bunches of grapes, and acanthus leaves. Two similar sarcophagi from the Tom b of
the N azirite and from H ero d ’s Family Tom b are of high quality, and are beautifully
carved with symmetrical ornam entation of a central m otif such as a vase or a leaf
with grape bunches, and with leaves and flowers filling the space (Pl. 8; fig. 18). This
design resembles the tomb facade ornam entation (fig. 9, the G rapes Tom b). Two
sarcophagi from “ Dom inus Flevit,” and one from the T om b of the Kings are also
of high quality, and are richly carved with elaborate rosettes in a row (fig. 19), or
flanking a bunch of leaves.
Differences are noticeable between sarcophagi and ossuary decoration and or­
nam entation. T he sarcophagi are usually depicted in high relief, are skillfully ex­
ecuted, and their design is richer and more elaborate. They are similar in style and
execution to the tomb facades of Jerusalem . However, their style, symmetrical ex­
ecution, play of light and shade, and horror vacui are similar to the style of ossuary
ornam entation (Avi-Yonah 1961b: 21). T he richly adorned sarcophagi well ex­
ecuted in relief were probably m uch more expensive so that only wealthy families
would have been able to afford them .
4) Wall Paintings
Jew ish rock-cut tombs of the Second Tem ple period are not known to have been
decorated. However, a wall painting was discovered in the m onum ental “ G oliath”
tom b in the Jericho necropolis (Hachlili 1985). Traces of a wall painting enclosed
116 JEW ISH ART A N D ARCHAEOLOGY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIO D FUNARY CUSTOM S AND ART 117

18. Sarcophagus from H ero d ’s Fam ily T om b .

19. Sarcophagus from the “ T om b o f the K in g s” .

by a painted red frame appear on three walls of the tomb (figs. 20, 21). The painting
is executed in various shades of red, brown and black. The loculi are outlined by
a thick black line flanked by two thinner red ones, form ing an arch above every
loculus. The vine m otif is the subject of paintings on both the north and south walls.
Several birds perch on the vines. The worst preserved section of the wall painting
21. D raw ing o f the Jericho T om b W all Painting.
faces the entrance on the west wall and shows ashlar stones or brick m asonry, prob­
ably portraying a structure, and floral designs (fig. 21). Three m ain non-figurative
motifs, vine branches, w reath and m asonry, appear in the wall painting. The vine
118 JEW ISH ART A N D ARCHAEOLOGY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIO D FUNERARY CUSTOM S A N D ART 119

branch m otif in contem porary Jew ish art of the first century CE is rare but appears
in the Grapes Tom b (fig. 9), and on two ossuaries and two sarcophagi from
Jerusalem (PL 18).
T he Jericho tomb painting was most likely accomplished at the same time as the
tom b itself was hewn, evidently for the benefit of the tom b’s visitors and to indicate
the fam ily’s prom inent position. In no way can it be considered as or com pared to
tomb graffiti that occasionally appear on tom b walls and seem to have been executed
by tom b visitors. This tom b, based both on absolute and relative chronology, can
be dated to 10-70 CE, thereby dating the wall painting to the beginning of the first
century CE; it probably was inspired by the G raeco-R om an tomb frescoes prevalent
at this time.

5) Drawings
A charcoal draw ing of a nefesh, a column pyram id, was discovered on a tom b wall
in the Jericho cemetery (Hachlili 1981). The draw ing depicts three columns and part
of a fourth (fig. 22). Each column consists of a fluted shaft on a raised rectangular
base, with an Ionic capital surm ounted by a pyram id. Palm trees fill the spaces in
between the columns. A similar three dimensional fragm ent of a stone nefesh grave
m arker was also found at Jericho (fig. 23). Similar columns are carved on several
22. D raw ing o f Nefesh on a T om b W all, Jericho. 23. A T h ree-D im ension al Stone Nefesh.
ossuaries (Pl. 17b) (Hachlili 1981: fig. 3; Pis. V; VI).
Several drawings in charcoal appear on the northern and southern walls of the
porch of J a so n ’s tomb. They probably were executed by one artist at the same time
(R ahm ani 1976: 69-75). T hree ships, one warship pursuing two other ships, are receptacles, richly ornam ented ossuaries and sarcophagi. Aniconic art is used, with
draw n in detail on the western wall of the porch (R ahm ani 1967: fig. 5). O ver the geometric, floral and architectural motifs. The origin of this art is Hellenistic with
entrance, on the northern wall of the porch, a recum bent stag is draw n (R ahm ani local execution by stone masons and artists.
1967: fig. 6). O n the eastern wall of the porch graffiti of five m enoroth are scratched
(fig. IX .2b). R ahm ani (1967: 73) m aintains that these graffiti are later than the
draw ing of the ships, about 30 CE. Some other indistinguishable graffiti also are
found in the tomb. R ahm ani (1967: 96) contends that the porch drawings served as
identification for one of the interred, and are m eant to indicate the occupation of
the deceased. The stag m ay represent either a symbol of strength or m ay refer to
a family nam e (R ahm ani 1967: 97). T hus, the drawings in J a so n ’s tom b were draw n
as a reference to those interred in the tom b and not as a purely decorative embellish­
m ent while the tomb was being hewn, as is the case with the Jericho wall painting.
Jew ish funerary art consists mostly of decorations of tombs, facades, pedim ents
and friezes in Jerusalem and a tomb wall painting at Jericho, as well as funerary
 QUM R AN A ND TH E D EAD SEA SCROLLS 121
C H A P T E R F IV E

Q U M R A N AN D T H E DEAD SEA SC R O L LS

A) Q um ran

K hirbet Q um ran lies at a height of 50 m. overlooking the coastal plain of the Dead
Sea (PI. 20). T he com m unity who wrote the Dead Sea scrolls are known from ar­
chaeological rem ains at the com m unity centre at Q um ran, from the nearby
agricultural area at cEn Feshka and cEn el‫־‬G uw her and from the D ead Sea scrolls
themselves, which were found and excavated in nearby caves. Those who came to
live at Q um ran chose this rem ote place for religious reasons, as a spiritual as well
as physical retreat from the m ainstream of Judaism and Jew ish life.
£
Six seasons of excavation at Q um ran and the surrounding area have revealed that
the site was occupied from 150 BCE until 68 CE in three m ain phases: periods la,
lb and II (de V aux 1973; Davies 1982).

Period la (ca. 150-103 BCE) (fig.l)

T he sparsity of excavation finds indicates that the earliest com m unity of period 25

la was small. The inhabitants probably built upon the ruins of a building, an
Israelite structure, which had been abandoned three hundred years before. The
building consists of two wings, a western and an eastern (fig. 1). It also has several
circular and rectangular cisterns ( 1 3 ‫)־‬, a decantation basin (4) which serves the
cisterns, two channels ( 5 6 ‫ )־‬which provide for the collection of water, several small
rooms (7-9) of unknow n purpose, and two potters’ kilns ( 1 0 1 1 ‫ )־‬on the east. Period
la is the least well preserved phase at Q um ran. Its pottery is very similar to that of
lb. Several silver coins which are dated to 130 BCE have been found, but it is uncer­
tain whether they belong to la as silver coins are known to have rem ained in circula­
tion longer than did those of bronze.
Period lb (ca. 103-31 BCE) (fig. 2)
In period lb the existing building was expanded, probably because the com m unity
increased to about three or four times its original num ber. In this period it became
an autonom ous settlement. The building now had three m ain parts: the m ain or
eastern block, the western block and the potters’ workshop.
1. Q um ran, Plan o f Period la . 2. Q um ran, Plan o f Period lb .
1) The main (eastern) block consists of a tower (1) overlooking the m ain entrance (2),
and store rooms on the ground floor. Its courtyard (6) is surrounded by kitchens (7)
and small rooms (8). The most interesting rooms in this block are (11) and (12). (11)
has benches running along its walls, and probably served as some kind of an
assembly room. (12) is the “ scriptorium ,” the upper room where the D ead Sea
scrolls were written. Several finds were discovered including m udbrick fragm ents
covered with plaster (later reassembled into tables) and one pottery and one bronze
inkwell (Davies 1982: 44-46; but see Golb (1980:3,5,11) rejecting the concept of the
Scriptorium ).
2) The western block was developed around existing cisterns and has an elaborate
water system. It contains a large cistern (13), a central corridor (15) with a circular
platform with a groove for millstones and a baking oven (16). Two rooms are located
in the southern part: a refectory (18) and its adjoining room (19), a pantry, where
thousands of crockery fragm ents were found. The refectory is the largest room at
122 JEW ISH ART A ND ARCHAEOLOGY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIO D
Q um ran and has on its west a circular paved area for the priest who presided over
the meals and ceremonies.
3) The potters3 workshop contains several features: a shallow, plastered basin (20)
where clay was washed with water from the channel, a pit (21) where the washed
clay was left to m ature, a trough (22) in which the final m ixing was carried out, a
stone-lined pit (23) in which the wheel stood, and two kilns (24) for firing the pot­
tery. This sole workshop apparently provided all of the pottery used at Q um ran,
which is probably the reason for a lack of variety and developm ent in the types of
periods I-II. However, the pottery on the whole is similar to other contem porary
assemblages found in the Land of Israel. O ther installations at Q um ran in this
period include two additional cisterns with a decantation basin (25), a small bathing
area (26), a store room (27) in which iron tools were found, an entrance (28) on the
north, a bath (29) used before entering the settlem ent proper, an aqueduct (30), an
outer courtyard (31), and what is probably the southwest corner entrance (32).
4) The cisterns. Because of its desert site, water was a m atter of great im portance
at Q um ran and for this reason the cisterns dom inate the entire complex. They are
linked by water channels which provide all areas with water, probably rainw ater,
which is carried by an aqueduct some 7 50 m etres into the northwest corner of
Q um ran.
D ating of period lb is provided both by pottery and by coins. The pottery consists
m ainly of late Hellenistic types dating from the beginning of the second century
BCE until the middle of the first century BCE. The coins, including those of silver
m entioned above, probably belonging to period la, are dated to the early part of the
first century BCE, ca. 100 BCE. Period lb occupation ended in fire and earthquake
around 31 BCE, at which time the site was abandoned. The reasons for the deser­
tion, the site to which the com m unity moved and the date of its return are all open
to conjecture. W hat is clear is that the same com m unity resettled the site in period
II. The gap in occupation at Q um ran is contem poraneous with the reign of H erod,
31-4 BCE.
Period I I (ca. 4 BCE—68 CE (Davies 1982: Plan 4))
Period II buildings are identical to those of lb in function, organization and size.
Beginning and end of occupation of this period is dated by coins which show that
life at the Q um ran com m unity ceased in the third year of the W ar against the
Rom ans (68 CE).
Q UM RAN AND TH E DEA D SEA SCROLLS 123
cEn Feshka
South of Q um ran on the Dead Sea coast (Davies 1982: 64-69), the site was ex­
cavated in 1958 and contains a few rem ains: a rectangular building (25 x 20 m .) con­
sisting of a courtyard surrounded by rooms, a lean-to structure on the south, and
an enclosure on the north (Davies 1982: Plan 6, PL 21). From evidence provided
by coins and pottery it seems that the building was inhabited during periods I-II of
Q um ran, with three stages of occupation. It was also partly inhabited during the sec­
ond Jew ish W ar of 132-135 CE. cEn Feshka was probably part of the Q um ran com­
plex: the structure’s connections with agricultural activity in the area suggest that
cEn Feshka was the Q um ran ‘'fa rm ,55 or its agricultural and industrial annexe with
stores, workshops and enclosures. The springs of Feshka would have provided water
for flocks and herds. The date palms which grew in abundance were used for limited
industrial work: mats were m ade from reeds and the palm trees were used for
tim ber. There is some evidence for a tannery.
The Q um ran com m unity was self-sufficient, its prim ary activity being the pro­
duction of m anuscripts by scribes in the scriptorium . The buildings show that vessels
were also m anufactured in the potters’ workshop, and the finds from cEn Feshka in­
dicate farm ing and industry.
B) T he Q um ran L ib r a r y
The Dead Sea Scrolls
(Cross 1961: 4-53; 163-194; Verm es 1978: 9-86; D im ant 1984)
The Hebrew writings on leather and papyrus found in eleven caves at Q um ran
belong to a library of religious m anuscripts of Biblical and post-Biblical Jew ish
literature. The scrolls and the fragm ents of texts were deposited in the eleven
Q um ran caves during the First W ar of the Jew s against R om e in 68 BCE. (But see
Golb 1980, suggesting in his well argued hypothesis that the m anuscripts are rem ­
nants of Jerusalem libraries hidden away in the Ju d e an desert prior to 70 C E .)
Biblical Literature: The Q um ran library yielded about 200 m anuscripts of the
H ebrew Bible, dating from the third century BCE until the second century CE. The
m anuscripts include every book of the Bible except for Esther. A bout seventy are
of the Pentateuch, with Deuteronom y predom inant. Four are complete scrolls.
These and a large num ber of Biblical comm entaries, along with Aram aic and Greek
translations of parts of the Bible, indicate that the Essenes were greatly interested
in Bible study.
124 JEW ISH ART A ND ARCHAEOLOGY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIO D
Several of the texts diverge from one another (Vermes 1978: 200-205). These
variations in the Biblical m anuscripts testify to a plurality of textual traditions, ex­
plained by scholars by a theory of geographically local texts (Cross) or by a theory
that textual traditions of distinct socio-religious groups were current in the period
preceding Q um ran (Talm on). This plurality was later com pounded into a unified
text as the result of religious authority; the Bible was canonized in ca. 100 CE by
the rabbis at Ja m n ia (Verm es 1978: 206-209).
Post- and non-Biblical manuscripts: These comprise four classes according to Vermes
(1978: 45-86): 1) rules (5 m anuscripts); 2) poetic, liturgical and wisdom texts (12
m anuscripts); 3) Biblical interpretations (23 writings); and 4) three miscellaneous
compositions including the Copper Scroll, Horoscopes and a M essianic Horoscope.
(A register of the entire library including the Biblical, Apocryphal,
Pseudepigraphical and Sectarian writings is found in Fitzm yer (1975: 11-52) and
Verm es (1978: 27-28).)
The Qumran scripts: O n the basis of palaeography, these belong to three periods
(Cross 1961):
1) A small group of Biblical m anuscripts in archaic style is dated to 250-150 BCE.
These were probably m aster scrolls brought to Q um ran by the sect when it was first
founded.
2) Several. Biblical and non-Biblical m anuscripts exhibit a style which reflects the
H asm onean period, ca. 150-30 BCE. Sectarian scrolls, which were composed and
copied at Q um ran, appear in the m id-H asm onean period, 100 BCE.
3) A large group of m anuscripts are dated to the H erodian period, ca. 30 BCE-70
CE.
The m ajority of scrolls are w ritten on leather in the formal “ H erodian” script.
T he skins were sewn together and bound onto a piece of wood, with the title in­
scribed on their surface. The scrolls were then placed in jars, in some cases first
being w rapped in linen. T he scrolls’ dates cover at least the period from the second
and first centuries BCE to the first century CE. T he m ajority of the m anuscripts
were composed or copied during the lifetime of the Q um ran com m unity, from about
150/140 BCE to 68 CE. A few Biblical m anuscripts are older: some are dated to the
third century BCE (the Samuel text from Q um ran cave 4 is dated to ca. 225 BCE).
Thus, a terminus a quo of 150-140 BCE for the establishment of the sect in Q um ran
m ay be posited and a terminus ad quem of 68 CE, when it was destroyed by Rom e,
during the First W ar. (Among the texts from M asada, one sectarian fragm ent,
known also from Q um ran, was found as were other fragm ents of Ben Sirach and
several papyri (Yadin 1966: 168-179).)
QUM RAN AND TH E DEAD SEA SCROLLS 125
The actual establishment of the Q um ran sect was in ca. 150-140 BCE; however,
it had probably existed for some years previously. The com m unity’s origins were
probably in the pre-M accabean and M accabean periods; they were an unorganized
group which originated in the “ Ages of W ra th ” at the beginning of the second cen­
tury BCE, and which was guided by a “ T eacher of R ighteousness” (Vermes 1978:
142-150).
C) C o m m u n it y C u sto m s a n d O r g a n iz a t io n
(Vermes 1978: 87-115; Schürer, Vermes and M illar. 1979,11: 575-577).
T he com m unity at Q um ran claimed to be the true Israel, and to represent the
genuine religion. It was divided into priests, Levites and laity, and m aintained a
symbolic grouping of twelve tribes as well as smaller units. Governed by priests, the
“ Sons of Z adok,” and a general assembly, it had a council of the com m unity
presided over by the priest-president. They decided upon m atters of doctrine, legal
affairs and property, debated the Law and selected newcomers. The com m unity af­
fairs were m anaged by a guardian mebaqqer. A priest had to be present at any gather­
ing of ten or more m en for debate, study or prayer. T he precedence of the priests
was absolute, in contrast to the priests in m ainstream Judaism . T he highest rank was
that of the G uardian or M aster (maskil), who instructed and taught the com m unity,
as well as presided over assemblies and com m unity councils.
The customs of the Q um ran com m unity (Vermes 1978: 94-96; Schürer, Vermes
and M illar, 1979, II: 581) were those of a life of worship with prayers daily at dawn
and at dusk. Festivals of the com m unity were celebrated on different days to those
of the regular Jew ish festivals and all Biblical feasts were observed. T he com m unity
mem bers followed strict laws of purity and cleanliness. T he most im portant institu­
tions of the com m unity were the council and the comm on, sacred meal which was
presum ably a substitute for the sacrificial meals of the Tem ple. Only the faultless
were allowed to sit at the common table. The sectaries probably imm ersed
themselves in a ritual bath before the meals, which would be first blessed by the
priest.
Induction into the sect was conducted in two stages: first, a person entered the
covenant by swearing loyalty to the M osaic laws in accordance with the particular
interpretation of the priesthood of the sect, and second, the newcomer undertook a
course of training before entering the congregation. The sect was probably celibate,
although some bones of wom an and children have been found in the cemeteries (de
V aux 1973:47,57-58).
126 JEW ISH ART A ND ARCHAEOLOGY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIOD QUM RAN A N D TH E DEAD SEA SCROLLS 127

Two branches of this sectarian religious m ovem ent, having both similarities and D) T h e I d e n t if ic a t io n o f t h e Q u m r a n se c t w it h t h e E sse n e s
differences, are known (Vermes 1978: 97-109): (Vermes 1978: 116-186; Schürer, Vermes and M illar 1979, I I : 580-585; Yadin
1) The desert sectaries in Q um ran comprised a voluntary religious com m unity 1983:398-399; but see Golb 1980).
group with comm on ownership of property living together in seclusion and celibacy,
and form ing a m onastic society. These features are described in the C om m unity T he identification of the Q um ran com m unity has been the subject of m uch
Rule and are verified by the archaeological finds at Q um ran. The Q um ran sect re­ debate; the most popular opinion identifies the Q um ran sect with the Essenes, des­
jected worship in the Jerusalem Tem ple, but T orah study was an integral part of cribed by Josephus and others, based on the following assumptions:
its life. The G uardian was directly responsible to the council. Only at Q um ran did 1) M any similarities are noted between the Essene sect and the Q um ran sect.
the sect keep a common table and the laws of “ p u rity .” Offending sectaries in the These similarities include customs, rites, and theology, such as the C alendar, the
Q um ran com m unity were excluded from com m unal life. New m em bers joining refusal to participate in the Tem ple cult, and their own interpretation of the Law.
Q um ran underw ent two years of training and studies in the doctrine of the “ two 2) The sect’s settlement at Q um ran appears to coincide with the location of that
spirits.” of the Essenes, m entioned by Pliny (N H V: 17) as being between Jericho and
2) The town sect described in the Dam ascus Covenant, M essianic Rule and some­ cE n‫־‬Gedi.
times in the W ar Rule, had a life style which differed from that of the Q um ran com­ 3) The period during which the Essene sect is assumed to have existed is approx­
m unity. M em bers lived as families in close contact with the surrounding Jew s and imately the same as the occupation at Q um ran, from the m id-second century BCE
Gentiles, had privately owned property and conducted regular lives. Tow n sectaries to the First W ar against Rom e in 68 CE.
handed their wages over to a charitable fund which distributed help to the needy;
they also participated in Tem ple worship. The G uardian in town was independent
of the council. Judges were appointed; offenders were either condem ned to death or
handed over for corrective custody.
Both branches of the sect had similar religious principles and followed the
Zadokite priesthood and M osaic law according to their own interpretation. Forms
of organization and governm ent were similar: both were governed by priests and by
the principal mebaqqer. Induction into both branches was through entry into the
Covenant. Both branches conducted their lives according to their own liturgical
calendar which completely differed from the general formal Jewish calendar
(Vermes 1978: 176-178; Davies 1982: 83-85). T he two branches of town and desert
were united in organization and theology, and through regular contact between
them . Verm es (1978: 107) proposes that a joint annual Feast of the C ovenant took
place at Q um ran. Furtherm ore, Vermes m aintains that the Q um ran G uardian was
the highest official for both town and desert camps. The annual festival at Q um ran
was probably celebrated with the participation of the town sectaries. This assum p­
tion is based on archaeological finds, consisting of bone deposits, at Q um ran, which
represent the rem ains of meals of large groups, probably connected with the festival.
T he bones of women and children found in the outer cemetery of Q um ran m ay also
point to the participation of the town sectaries in the annual festival. T hus, Q um ran
was the spiritual and organizational centre of both the desert and town branches of
the sect.
 TH E BAR K OKHBA PER IO D 129

C H A P T E R S IX

T H E BAR K O K H B A P E R IO D (132-135 BCE)

T he cause of the Bar Kokhba W ar (132-135 CE) has been m uch debated by
scholars. It appears that two facts, m entioned by Dio and the H istoria Augusta,
probably caused the revolt (Schürer, V erm es & M illar 1973, I: 535-542). The first
was the founding by H adrian of a pagan city, Aelia Capitolina, on the ruins of
Jerusalem , and his intention to erect a temple to Ju p ite r Capitolinus on the site of
the destroyed Tem ple. T he second was the ban against circumcision, which,
although not prim arily directed against the Jew s, deeply offended them . These two
causes, particularly the first, m eant the end to any hopes of a reconstruction of the
city of Jerusalem or the rebuilding of the Tem ple, and probably created enough of
a reaction am ong the Jew ish populace which would lead to a general revolt.
The discoveries in the Ju d e an desert (M urabbacat, Nahal H ever and Nahal
Z e’elim, as well as other excavations) have extended our knowledge about this war.
According to the documents of the Ju d e an desert, the leader of the war was Shimeon
Bar Koziba, renam ed Bar K okhba— Son of the Star—by R abbi Akiba, probably in
connection with M essianic connotations. His enemies called him Bar K oziba—son Inform ation on the Bar Kokhba W ar is obtained from: 1) documents; excavations
of the Lie, or Deceiver (Schürer, Verm es & M illar 1973, I: 543-544). O n coins he of 2) caves and 3) subterranean hideouts; and 4) coins.
is term ed “ Shimeon, prince of Israel” (M eshorer 1982, II: 136).
T he war spread quickly throughout the Land of Israel and beyond its borders. 1) The Bar Kokhba documents (Benoit, M ilik & de V aux 1961; Y adin 1971; Vermes
Several strongholds at Bethar, H erodium , cA rabia, cEn-Gedi and Gofna were held 1978: 14-19 and bibl. p. 26; Schürer, Verm es & M illar 1973, I: 546-547) were found
by the Jew s with an adm inistrative centre probably at cE n‫־‬Gedi. The revolt was sup­ in the Ju d e an desert caves of M urabbacat and Nahal H ever. They are w ritten in
pressed by Tineius Rufus, the governor of Ju d ea, but only with the help of large four languages, Hebrew, Aram aic, Greek and N abatean in a formal and cursive
num bers of reinforcem ent troops. Later, Julius Severus, a general of H adrian, script. The documents include legal contracts, deeds and secular m anuscripts. The
directed the hunt to track down rebels who were still hiding in caves and subterra­ M u rab b acat and Nahal H ever caves yielded a most im portant group of letters con­
nean hideouts. nected with Shimeon ben Kosiba ( = Bar Kokhba). O ther m anuscripts from this site
Ironically, the war probably never reached Jerusalem (Schürer, Verm es & M illar include old documents, legal texts and Latin papyri, dated to the second century
1973, I: 550). Bar K okhba’s last stronghold was Bethar where a lengthy and m ajor CE. A most im portant group of m anuscripts was found in the N ahal H ever Cave
battle was fought, which resulted in the fall of the stronghold in 135 CE. of Letters by Israeli archaeological expeditions to the Ju d e an desert (fig. 1).
By the end of the w ar most of Ju d e a had been destroyed, and in Jerusalem stood Aram aic, H ebrew and Greek documents from the Bar K okhba period were found
the R om an city of Aelia Capitolina with its temple of Ju p iter. No Jew s were allowed in the Cave of Letters (Yadin 1971). They consist of the Simeon Bar K okhba letters,
to enter the city and those rem aining in Ju d e a scattered, resettling in other areas, several parchm ent fragm ents of Biblical m anuscripts, and an interesting archive of
particularly in the Galilee. 35 legal documents in Aram aic, N abatean and Greek, which belonged to Babata,
a Jew ish wom an, and her family. The texts are dated from 93 to 132 CE. This a r­
130 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIO D
chive contains B abata’s property deeds and tax returns as well as her m arriage con­
tract. The Bar K okhba papyri m anuscripts have im portant historical value as they
are the only source which deals with several aspects of the Second Jew ish W ar. The
letters were written by Shimeon ben (bar) Koziba, later nam ed Bar Kokhba, to his
com m anders in their Ju d e an desert strongholds. These strongholds included cEn-
Gedi, H erodium and Tekoca. The letters also provide a picture of the revolutionary
governm ent at about 132 CE. The land was divided into districts com m anded by
m ilitary governors and the civil comm unities were governed by officials who
cooperated with each other. T he texts also attest to the fact that all the Jew ish
religious customs were strictly kept.
2) Caves in the Ju d ean desert were used as places of refuge from the R om an
enemy; and excavations in the caves reveal evidence of the times both preceding and
during the Second W ar. A part from documents, artefacts such as pottery and glass
vessels, bronze objects and pieces of cloth and leather were found in the caves
(Avigad et al. 1961; 1962; Yadin 1963). The m ain occupation in these caves seems
to have been during the Second Jew ish W ar against the Rom ans, the Bar Kokhba
W ar (132-135 CE). This is confirmed both by archaeological finds such as coins, and
also by the contents of the m anuscripts.
3) Subterranean hiding places (Kloner 1983a) were used by the fighters when the Bar
Kokhba revolt spread. In the Ju d ean foothills about 150 cave-complexes have been
discovered at seventy sites. These were series of caves hewn into the limestone and
connected by tunnel-like passages. Each complex had its own individual water
source. Similar hiding places have also been discovered in the H ebron m ountains
and at H erodium . Several characteristic features indicate that the cave-complexes
were places of hiding and refuge:
a) The entrances are small, low and intentionally concealed, and could be closed
and defended from the inside.
b) Tunnel-like passages, referred to as “ burrow s,” are a characteristic feature of
such complexes. These burrow s, hewn low and narrow so that passage was possible
only by crawling on all fours, connected the various rooms of the complexes. Some
passages served for storage purposes, as water reservoirs, for ventilation or as means
of escape. They could be completely or partly sealed off.
Some subterranean complexes had several levels joined by vertical shafts which
could be blocked for defensive purposes. In m any of the rooms and burrows, lamp
niches are hewn at various levels into the walls. Two types of cave-complexes have
been classified: 1) Small groups for families; and 2) large public complexes. Each
TH E BAR K OKHBA PERIO D 131
of the small caves had an entrance, burrow and several small rooms, several of them
hewn beneath the living quarters. A cave could hold from 20 to 40 people, probably
several families. The public complexes were m uch larger including halls and long
passages.
Dating of the Complexes
The complexes post-date the Hellenistic and early R om an periods. This is based
on the fact that some of the caves cut into older installations dated to the third-first
centuries BGE. Bar Kokhba coins have been found in several excavations and m any
of the coins reaching the present-day m arket probably come from these complexes.
Pottery discovered in the subterranean hiding places is dated to the first and second
centuries CE, in the period following the destruction of the Second Tem ple. D ating,
literary sources and the fact that the Ju d e an foothills were under the control of Bar
Kokhba, indicate advance planning and construction of the subterranean hiding
places. This is also attested to by a similarity in plan, m ethod and technique, and
by the defence installations found in the complexes. This dating of the construction
of the complexes to a time earlier than 132 CE indicates that they served as tem ­
porary hiding places (and not as perm anent dwellings) where weapons and provi­
sions could be stored in preparation for the revolt.
4) Bar Kokhba Coins (M eshorer 1982, II: 132-150) were not m inted in Jerusalem ;
Jerusalem was never conquered by Bar K okhba and no coins of the period have been
found there (Schürer, Vermes & M illar 1973: 500; M eshorer 1982, II: 134). Instead
existing Greek and R om an coins were overstruck with Jew ish symbols and political,
religious and national inscriptions. M eshorer (1982, II: 159) suggests that the Bar
K okhba coinage was m inted in several places: in cE n‫־‬Gedi, the adm inistrative cen­
tre, or in any of the other Jew ish cities. It is also possible that the m int m aster fol­
lowed Bar Kokhba, m inting coins wherever and whenever necessary. Designs
depicted on the coins were m eant as propaganda and were connected with the T em ­
ple and other Jew ish emblems. They include the Tem ple facade (fig. I, 7c), the
bunch of the four species, (lulav (palm branch), ethrog (citron), willow and myrtle),
several Tem ple vessels such as the am phora and jug, and musical instrum ents such
as the two trum pets and the harp (nevel). Also depicted are clusters of grapes and
leaf, palm tree and branch. These designs evoked a hope for the restoration of the
Tem ple in Jerusalem and the redem ption of Israel. T he Tem ple facade was not an
illustration of the actual facade but rather was a symbolic design of the concept of
the Tem ple (suggested by M eshorer (1982, II: 140)). The four species on the coins
probably symbolized the hope of rebuilding the Jerusalem Tem ple at the same time
as defying R om an laws forbidding their use (M eshorer 1982, II: 141).
132 JEW ISH ART A N D ARCHAEOLOGY IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIO D

Art of the Bar Kokhba period

A rt, obviously, did not flourish during this period. Finds connected with the con­
cealment in the Ju d ean desert caves, however, include clothing, glass, vessels taken
from a R om an camp and other artefacts (Avigad et al. 1961; 1962; Y adin 1963). A
group of lamps from the H ebron area attest also to the art of the period (Sussman
1982). They are dated from the time after the Tem ple destruction until the Bar
K okhba revolt. The designs depicted on these lamps represent fruit and floral pat­
terns, the four species, vessels, baskets and various other artefacts. Sussman
observes connections between the lam p design and ornam entation, and ossuary
decoration. This m ay very well have been the case as they were part of a popular PART TW O
art repertoire, and m ay have been produced by the same artists. These designs are
similar to coin emblems so that a comm on source of inspiration seems credible. JE W IS H A R T A N D A R C H A E O L O G Y IN LA TE A N T IQ U IT Y

P art II is devoted to an analysis of the art and archaeology of a structure which

represents a new concept in Jew ish life: the synagogue. Its developm ent in Late A n­
tiquity is followed, beginning in the late second century and continuing until the
seventh century. Till recently, its environm ent has been m uch less investigated than
the synagogue itself.
T he architecture and art of the synagogue is comprehensively defined. Specific
symbolic and iconographic themes are delineated; taken together with distinctive
features which are revealed, they show the presence of an ancient Jew ish art.
Table 2 shows only those synagogues excavated or surveyed of which rem ains of
the structure have survived. It is unfortunate that of all those synagogues excavated
in the last decades very few have been published in m ore than a prelim inary report.
 C H A P T E R SEV EN

T H E SY N A G O G U E

A) T he L o c a t io n of th e Synagogue

Beth Ha-Knesseth in Hebrew and syn-agogue in G reek both m ean “ House of

Assem bly.” The synagogue institution was a revolutionary concept in term s of w or­
ship and faith: first, as a place of worship, not only for the privileged few, that is
the priests, but rather for a large, participating comm unity; second, as a place which
contained inside it a central place of worship in a prom inent position; and third, as
an assembly house used for comm unal as well as for religious occasions.
Synagogue buildings were generally erected on a high place in a city or village,
in the centre of town or near a w ater source. Local topographic conditions, however,
were also taken into consideration in their construction. Both the spiritual and social
concepts of these places of worship dictated the external design as well as the interior
plan (figs. 1, 2) .
A central hall, occasionally with structures attached to it, composed the m ain
building. The most prom inent interior synagogue feature was the T orah shrine
(p. 166ff.); worship was always facing Jerusalem .
Archaeological rem ains of synagogues provide inform ation about various areas of
Jew ish life which are otherwise sparsely documented: these areas include the im por­
tance of symbolic, decorative and representational art for local Jew ish life.
The great concentration of synagogue rem ains in the Galilee can be dated from
the end of the second century to the third and fourth centuries, which testifies to the
area having been the centre of Jew ish life at that time. Simultaneously, however,
synagogues began to be built in Ju d e a and elsewhere.

B) T he O r ig in a n d H ist o r y o f t h e Synagogue

The origin of the synagogue is still disputed (see G utm ann 1975; 1981). As early
as the m id-third century BCE, inscriptions m ention Egyptian synagogues; Jew s in
the first century CE believed the synagogue to be a very ancient institution dating
back to the time of Moses; Talm udic tradition m entions the fact that there were
synagogues during the Babylonian exile.
136 JEW ISH ART AND ARCH AEOLOGY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY TH E SYNAGOGUE 137

2. C horazin, B uildings and Synagogue.

insula 1
(sacra)
Some scholars assume that the synagogue was established by D iaspora Jew s (Avi-
Yonah 1961a: 155-156). However, synagogues existed both in the D iaspora and the
Land of Israel during the late Second Tem ple period. T he Theodotus inscription
from M ount Ophel records a synagogue in Jerusalem . This first century Greek in­
scription (Frey 1952: no. 1404) records the dedication of a synagogue for the use of
pilgrims from abroad:
Theodotus the son of Vettenus, priest and archisynagogus, son of the archisynagogus
and grandson of an archisynagogus built the synagogue for the reading of the Torah
1. C apernaum , Plan o f Buildings and Synagogue.
138 JEW ISH ART A ND ARCH AEOLOGY IN LATE A N TIQ UITY
and the study of the Commandments, and the hostel, chambers and water installation
to provide for the needs of itinerants from abroad, and whose father, with the elders
and Simonides founded the synagogue.
Literary sources, such as Josephus (Against Apion 2, 175) and the New Testam ent
(Acts 15:21), also attest to the existence of synagogues in the first century which were
centres of Scripture reading and studies. Archaeological finds indicate the existence
of synagogue-type structures in the first century (see pp. 84-88). G utm ann (1981: 3-4)
m aintains that the emergence of the synagogue was the result of the H asm onean
revolution in second century BCE Ju d ea, when the synagogue, an institution unique
to the Pharisees, became a m eeting place where prayers and ceremonies were prac­
ticed by the individual Jews. Safrai (1976: 912-913, 918) sees the synagogue as
developing from the public T orah reading assemblies at the time of Ezra (fifth cen­
tury BCE). Originally devoted to special rituals on feast days and Sabbaths (in the
first century CE), the synagogue later developed into a daily m eeting place for the
local com m unity for T orah reading and prayer.
C) T he F u n c t io n of the Synagogue co m pared to th e J er usa lem
1) The Tem ple was the only centre for national activity which took the form
principally of an anim al sacrifice ritual. By contrast, the synagogue was a cen­
tre solely for the local comm unity. W orship in the Second Tem ple synagogues was
probably conducted only on feast-days and Sabbaths. (Safrai 1976: 918).
2) T he Tem ple, according to tradition, was situated in Jerusalem . O n the other
hand, synagogues could be built anywhere throughout the Land of Israel and the
Diaspora. T hus the synagogue, by becoming the centre of public life, was a most
revolutionary development and a new concept in the history of ancient Judaism .
3) A small group of priests practiced in the Tem ple, and entry into the Holy of
Holies was allowed only to the H igh Priest himself. T he ordinary worshippers who
came to the Tem ple were relegated to the outer courtyards of the Tem ple precincts.
In the synagogue, by comparison, all the participants were involved in and con­
ducted the ceremonies. W orshippers took turns in reciting prayers and reading the
Scriptures.
4) Scripture reading was not an essential part of the Tem ple service and was intro­
duced only during the Second Tem ple period. Furtherm ore, Scripture reading was
not a substitute for Tem ple sacrifices or liturgy: it simply supplem ented Tem ple
worship (Safrai 1976: 912). Prayer and study in the local synagogue replaced
sacrifice in the national Tem ple as the m eans of serving God. Synagogue services
took place at regular times, on the Sabbath, feast days and special occasions (as did
TH E SYNAGOGUE 139
offerings in the Tem ple). Later, the plan of the synagogue building, with its Torah
shrine housing the Ark of the Scrolls in a prom inent position, attests to the fact that
the congregation came to pray and read Scripture; Jew ish synagogal and funerary
art which bear representations symbolizing the Tem ple testify to a continuation of
Tem ple customs.
D) T he Synagogue and the C o m m u n it y
1) The Variety of Synagogal Activities
a) R eading the T orah, the Scriptures, was the prim ary purpose for the
synagogue’s congregation who participated both in reading and in attending to other
readers.
b) Study: Local sages conducted the reading, study and interpretation of the
Scriptures in the synagogues. O ften, scholars would be employed by the synagogue
fathers.
c) Prayer: In the Second Tem ple period, prayer took the form of blessing the con­
gregation. R egular prayer services were held on the Sabbaths and the feast days.
T em ple
Daily prayers involving a large num ber of worshippers were established only after
the destruction of the Second Tem ple (Safrai 1976: 922-927).
d) The assembly hall and town hall for the local Jew ish congregation, served as
a centre for com m unity fund-raising, charitable collections, congregational affairs,
and as a type of court of public interests (Safrai 1976: 942).
e) Institutions adjoined the synagogue, and included schools and, in annexes,
hostels, guest houses and residences for synagogue officials. Sometimes ritual baths
(miqvaoth) were also built on.
f) The synagogue or an adjoining room would serve on occasions of the New
M oon or the Sabbath (Saturday) evening as a dining room (Safrai 1976: 943).
2) Administration of the synagogue (Safrai 1976: 933 ff; Schiirer, Verm es and M illar
1979,11: 427-439).
The synagogue generally belonged to a local com m unity and was governed by
three representatives: 1) the archisynagogus (Rosh Ha-Knesset), the president, 2) the
receiver of alms, who was a civic official, and 3) the m inister (Hazzari). The ar­
chisynagogus m anaged religious and financial affairs and the hazzan was the ex­
ecutive officer in charge of the practical details of running the synagogue. H e was
the m aster of ceremonies, and a paid employee (Safrai 1976: 935-937).
Construction of a synagogue would be decided upon by the heads of the com ­
m unity and would be financed by private and public donations. This is known by
the num erous dedicatory synagogal inscriptions found in excavations. The donors
140 JEW ISH ART AND ARCH AEOLOGY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY

who paid for the erection, repair and rebuilding of synagogues were usually Jews.
Inscriptions generally m ention the nam e of the donor and his donation, which was
usually in the form of money. M ost of the inscriptions are in Aramaic; thus, Avi- C H A P T E R E IG H T
Yonah deduces (1961b: 32) that the donors did not belong to the Hellenized classes.
SY N A G O G U E A R C H IT E C T U R E A N D D E C O R A T IO N

T he synagogue building functioned as an assembly hall for the local congregation

as well as a spiritual, religious and social centre. Its use as a com m unity assembly
centre determ ined its architectural plan which took the form of a large hall divided
by supporting columns, and with benches around it.
T he m any different architectural styles uncovered verify that no universal or
uniform synagogue plan existed. Opinions vary considerably as to the evolution of
synagogue architecture. Several attem pts have been m ade to categorize and explain
the different types and the divergence in style of the synagogues scattered
throughout m any regions. Avi-Yonah (1961a: 1973:32-33) divides synagogue plans
into three chronological types: 1) the earliest Galilean and Golan type dating from
the second century onwards, and with an ornam ental facade and a portable wooden
construction serving as the T orah shrine; 2) the transitional type from the fourth and
fifth centuries, sometimes called “ broad-house.” In this type three new principles
appear: a) a fixed shrine in the Jerusalem -oriented wall, b) entrances in the opposite
wall, c) changes in the style of ornam ent from relief to mosaic. A nd 3) the later type
of the fifth to eighth centuries with a basilical plan and mosaic pavem ents. M eyers
(1980: 97-108) attem pts a different classification of synagogue developm ent accord­
ing to its plan: 1) the earliest, the basilica, the so-called “ G alilean” type; 2) the tra n ­
sitional type (the broadhouse); and 3) the latest, apsidal synagogue. A nother m ethod
employed for classification of synagogue architectural developm ent has been the
creation of regional divisions (as suggested by M eyers et al. 1976: 99; K loner 1981:
15-18) (see m ap 2).
Excavations of synagogues in the last decade have challenged the above assum p­
tions concerning typology and chronology (see pp. 396-400) to such an extent that
such assumptions can no longer serve as guides for the clarification of synagogue
architectural development. Although the regional theory rem ains useful, and this
study points out characteristics shared by synagogues in the same region irrespective
of chronological distinction, an attem pt will be m ade in this work to establish essential
characteristics typical to the architecture of the m ajority of synagogues, regardless
of geographical location. Divergencies am ong the types of synagogue buildings will
be shown to be due to the social standing of the donors, the financial means of the
142 JEW ISH ART AND ARCH AEOLOGY IN LATE A N TIQ UITY SYNAGOGUE A R CH ITEC TUR E A N D DECOR ATION 143

congregation and to the local construction traditions and practices of the craftsmen
.. · Baràm
M aro u s· , and masons involved in the construction.
S asa · ErrN eshut
Nabratein
Meiron ·
• H. Shura
H. shem a ·
Chorazin «
Capernaum A) C h a r a c t e r is t ic F eatures of Synagogue A r c h it e c t u r e
V eradim ·
H.Ha-Amudim % · ’Arbel Generally the internal plan of the synagogue building consists of two rows of stone
‫ ״‬, ‫״‬ Hammath J
Kefar Kana · Tiberias columns which divide the m ain hall lengthwise into a central nave and two side
Sepphoris ·
aisles. The m ajority of synagogue plans are oblong and all have longitudinal axes.
I. Summak · * eth · J a p h ia A part from these general characteristics, synagogues in the Land of Israel exhibit
Sha’erim
several other common features, the most prom inent of which are the facade and its
Kakhav Ha-Yarden ·
portals, the T orah shrine, and the gallery.
• C aesarea Beth-Alpha ·
Beth-Shean #

1) The Facade
An analysis of the synagogue facade can best be undertaken by a separation of
its various components: both triple and single portal, the Syrian gable surm ounting
the facade, and the central arched window.

a) The Triple Portal

O ne of the most characteristic features of the ancient synagogue is the facade with
its triple entrance built in one of the short sides of the structure. This entrance con­
sists of a high central doorway with a lower one on each side (see table 2a), and is
common in the Galilean synagogues, the B arcam synagogue facade being a well-
preserved example (PI 21) and see also M eiron, PI 22). Rem ains of entryway
• Sha^lbim
thresholds and doorposts have been preserved in most of the other synagogues (figs.
Huldah ·
1-4).
Jerusalem ·
The m ain differences between the (triple) facades of the various synagogues are:
1) Orientation. Characteristic of the Galilean synagogues is the location of both the
I ,A scalon • Herodium facade and the T orah shrine on the same Jerusalem -oriented southern wall (see
• Beth‫־‬Govrin
p. 167 ff.). In other well-preserved synagogues, particularly those of the fifth and sixth
centuries, the facade is usually in the wall facing the T orah shrine. Exceptions are
·G a z a the synagogues of Susiya, ■ >Eshtem oca and cEn-Gedi which all have triple facades on
H. Kishor
En‫־‬Gedi ·! the eastern or western side wall not facing the niches (fig. 3 ).
*Eshtemoa I
2) Ornamentation. The facades of the Galilean and Golan synagogues are richly or­
H. Rimmon · • Susiya nam ented, by comparison with the plain facades of all other synagogues.
• Mabn
Masada The orientation of the facade is secondary in im portance to that of the T orah
shrine, which is always built on the Jerusalem -oriented wall (see pp. 196-199).

M ap 2. A ncient synagogue sites in the Land of Israel.

144 JEW ISH ART A ND ARCHAEO LOG Y IN LATE A N TIQ UITY
SYNAGOGUE ARC H ITEC TURE A N D D ECORATION

1. Plans of G alilean Synagogues: 1) C horazin; 2) C ap ern au m ; 3) B arcam ; 4) Arbel; 5) Shem ca;

6) M eiron; 7) H ush H alav; 8) M arous; 9) N abratein; 10) cA m m udim .

of G olan Synagogues: 1) U m m el-K anatir; 2) K azrin; 3) Dikke;

4) cEn N eshut; 5) K anef; 6) cAssalieh.
146 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY SYNAGOGUE A R C H ITEC TURE A N D DECORATION 147

h O -
I
1
r I —!0m ■ ■

■ I

0 s »

7 ? ? J m
im

11
rm

3. Plans o f Synagogues w ith N iches: 1) DE shtem oca; 2) Susiya; 3) R im m on; 4) Beth Shecarim; 5) cEn- Plans o f Synagogues with Apses: 1) Jericho; 2) M a coz H ayim ; 3) M a con; 4) G aza; 5) Beth 5Alpha;
G edi; 6) Beth She^an B; 7) R ehov; 8) Jap h ica; 9) H useifa; 10) H am m ath Tiberias A; 11) H am m ath 6) N a caran; 7) Gerasa; 8) H am m ath G ader.
Tiberias B.
148 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY SYNAGOGUE ARC H ITEC TU RE A ND DECORATION 149

Table 2: la: The Synagogues in the Land of Israel Table 2 : Ib: The Synagogues in the Land of Israel

E x t e r i o r Exterior
O rientation Facade O rientation Facade
N am e o f D ate in D im ensions towards Court- N arthex Entrances N am e o f D ate in D im ensions towards Court- N arthex Entrances
Synagogue centuries (CE) in M etres Jerusalem yard Portico triple single Synagogue centuries (C E) in M etres Jerusalem yard Portico triple single
F T S F T

1. ‫־‬,Arbel 3rd 4 ‫־‬th 18.2 x 18.6 + +E 23. H am m ath Tiberias B

2. cA m u dim 3rd 4 ‫־‬th 14.1 x 22.5 4- + (? ) + I (II B) 3rd 13.0 x 15.0 + +
3. Barcam 3rd 15.2 x 20.0 + + + II (II A) 4th 13.0 x 15.0 + + +
4. C apernaum I 1st 18.5 x 24.2 III(I a,b) 6th - 8th 24.0 x 31.0 + + +
II 4th - 5th 18.6 x 2 0.4 + + + + + 24. Beth Yerah 4th - 5 t h 22.0 x 37.0 +
5. C horazin I 3rd 4 ‫־‬th 16.7 x 22.8 + + + 25. H useifa 4th 5 ‫־‬th ? x 10.1 +
II 4th - 5 t h 16.7 x 22.8 + + + + 26. Jap h ica 4th - 5th 15.0 x 19.0
6. G ush H alav I 250-362 10.6 x 13.7 _|_ -j. -j- 27. Sum m aqa 3rd -4th 14.0 x 19.3 +
II 362-551 10.6 x 13.7 28. Beth Sh ecarim I 3rd 15.0 x 35.0 + +
7. M eiron 280-360 13.6 x 27.4 + + + + II 4th 15.0 x 35.0 + +
8. N abratein I 135-250 11.2 x 9 .4 + + + 29. Beth 3A lpha 6th 10.8 x 12.4 + + +
l ia 250-306 11.2 x 13.8 _L _L -|_ + 30. Beth SheDan A 5th 7 ‫־‬th 17.0 x 14.2 + + +
r
lib 306-350/363 11.2 x 13.8 31. Beth She^an B 6th 7..0 x 7.0 +
III 564-700 11.2 x 16.8 + + + 32. M a coz H ayim 1(a) 3rd - 4th 12.5 x 14.0 +
9. M arous I 4th - 6th 17.0 x 18.7 + + + + 11(b) 5th 12.0 x 14.5 + +
II 5th - 6th 17.0 x 18.7 + + + + 111(c) 6th - 7th 12.0 x 14.5 + +
III 6th 9 ‫־‬th 17.8 x 19.3 + + 33. R ehov I early 4th 17.0 x 19.0 + +
10. Sh em ca I 284-306 18.0 x 9.0 + +N II late 4 th -5 th 17.0 x 19.0 + +
II 306-419 18.0 x 9.0 + +N III 6th - 7th 17.0 x 19.0 + + +
11. Shura 5th 7 ‫־‬th 14.5 x 17.0 + +? 34. C aesarea I 3rd ?
12. cA ssalieh 5th - 6th 16.0 x 18.0 + + II 5th ? +
13. D ab iya 5th 13.2 x 15.1 + + 35. :>E shtem oca 4th 6 ‫־‬th 20.0 x 10.0 + + +
14. Dikke 5th 10.4 x 13.8 + +W 36. Susiya I end 4 th -5 th 15.0 x 19.0 + + + +
15. D ir cA ziz 5 th 10.7 x 17.9 +W II 6th 8 ‫־‬th 15.0 x 19.0 + + + +
16. cEn N esh ut 5th - 6th 11.3 x 12.5 + + + 37. R im m on I m id 3rd ? +
17. K an ef 5th 13.3 x 15.0 II 4th 6 ‫־‬th ?
18. K azrin I 4th - 5th 15.3 x 15.2 + +N III 6th - 7th 9.5 x 13.5 + + + +
II 6th 15.0 x 17.2 + + 38. M a con 6th 15.0 x 17.0 + + +
III 7th - 8th 15.0 x 17.2 + + 39. G aza early 6 th -7 th 26.0 x 30.0 + +
19. U m m el-K anatir Late 5 th -6 th 13.3 x 18.8 + + + 40. Jericho late 6th - 7th 10.0 x 13.0 +
20. Z um im ra 5th - 6th 14.4 x 18.9 41. N a caran 6th 15.0 x 22.0 + +
21. H am m ath G ader I 3rd 42. cEn-G edi I 3rd 10.0 x 15.5 + +
II 4th 13.0 x 13.9 + + +E II 4th - 5th 10.0 x 15.5 +
III 5th - 6th 13.0 x 13.9 + + +E III 6th 10.0 x 15.5 + + + +
22. H am m ath- 43. G erasa 5th 6 ‫־‬th 14.0 x 28.0 +
T iberias A 4th 5 ‫־‬th 12.0 x 12.0 + + +

Synagogues: 1-11 are G alilean synagogues; 12-20 are G olan synagogues; 21-42 are synagogues listed
geographically from north to south; 43 is situated in Transjordan

Abbreviations: Orientation: F = Facade; T = Torah shrine; N } S, E, W m ean that entrances face these
directions
 Table 2: Ha: The Synagogues in the Land of Israel

Exterior Inte r io r 150

Name of Carved Arched Syrian Side Outside Torah Shrine
Synagogue Pilasters Window Gable Entrance Windows Stairs Aedicula Niche Apse Bema Fragments

1. DArbel + +
2. cAmudim + + +?
3. Barcam + + + +
4. Capernaum I
1 1 + + + + + + +2
5. Chorazin I
1 1 + + + + + + +2 +
6. Gush Halav I + + +
II +
7. Meiron + +
8. Nabratein I + +2
Ha + +2 +
lib ■ + +2
III +
9. Marous I-III + + +2 +
10. Shemca I +
II + + + . +
11. Shura +

12. cAssalieh +
13. Dabiya + +
14. Dikke + + + +
15. Dir cAziz +
16. cEn Neshut ■ + .+ '+ + +
17. Kanef +‫־‬ + (?) +
18. Kazrin I +
JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE A N TIQ UITY

II + + + + + +
III + + + + + +
19. Umm el‫־‬Kanatir + + + + +
20. Zumimra + +? +

21. Hammath Gader I

II + +

III + + +
22. Hammath-
Tiberias A +__________________________

Table 2: l i b : The Synagogues in the Land of Israel

E xt e r i o r I n t e r i o r
Name of Carved Arched Syrian Side Outside Torah S h r i n e
Synagogue Pilasters Window Gable Entrance Windows Stairs Aedicula Niche Apse Bema Fragm ents

23. Hammath Tiberias B

I (II b) +
II (II b) + +
III(I a,b) + +
24. Beth Yerah +
25. H u seifa
26. J a p h ica +
27. Sum m aqa
28. Beth Shecarim I
II +
29. Beth 5Alpha + + +
30. Beth She^an A +
31. Beth She^an B +
32. M a coz Hayim 1(a) +
11(b) +
III(c) + +
33. Rehov I +
II + +
HI + + . +
34. Caesarea I
II +
35. ‫>־‬E shtem oca +3 +
36. Susiya I + + _!_
II + +
37. H. RimmonI +
SYNAGOGUE A RC H ITEC TURE AND DECORATION

II
HI +
38. M a con + + +
39. Gaza + .
40. Jericho +
41. N a caran +
42. cE n‫־‬Gedi I
II + +
HI +
151

43. Gerasa + +
152 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY SYNAGOGUE A R C H ITEC TURE A N D DECORATION 153
 154 JEW ISH ART AND ARCH AEOLOGY IN LATE A N TIQ UITY SYNAGOGUE ARC H ITEC TU RE A ND DEC OR ATION 155

Table 2: IV a: The Synagogues in the Land of Israel Table 2 : IVb: The Synagogues in the Land of Israel

O r n a m e n t a t i o n O r n a m e n t a t i o n
Floor P avem ents Wal ls Floor P avem ents Wal ls
N am e o f Archit. Stone L im e­ Stone, N am e o f Archit. Stone, L im e­ Stone
S ynagogue Frag. M osaic Slabs Plaster Fresco stone Basalt C oncrete Synagogue Frag. M osaic Slabs Plaster Fresco stone Basalt Concrete

1. 5Arbel + + + 23. H am m ath T iberias B

2. cA m u dim + + + + I (II b) + +
3. Barcam + + + II (II b) + +
4. C apernaum I + + III(I a,b) + +
II + + + 24. Beth Yerah + +
5. C horazin I 25. H useifa + + +
II + + + 26. Ja p h ica + +
6. G ush H alav I ■ + + + 27. Sum m aqa + +
II + + + 28. Beth Shecarim I + + +
7. M eiron + +. + II + + +
8. N abratein I + + 29. Beth ·,A lpha + +
l ia + + + 30. Beth She^an A + +
lib + + + 31. Beth She-’an B + +
III + + + 32. M a coz H ayim 1(a) +
9. M arous M il + + + + 11(b) + +
10. Sh em ca I + + -i- + III(c) + ■+
II + 33. R eh ov I + + +
11. Shura + + + II + + +
III + + +
12. cA ssalieh + + 34. Caesarea I + +
13. D ab iya .+ + II + +
14. Dikke + + + 35. ‫>־‬E shtem oca + +
15. D ir cA ziz + 36. Susiya I + +
16. cEn N eshut + + + + II + +
17. K an ef + + 37. H . R im m on I + + + +
18. K azrin I + + II
II + + + III + +
III + + + 38. M a con + + +
19. U m m el‫־‬K anatir + + + 39. G aza + + +
20. Z um im ra + + 40. Jericho + . +
41. N a caran + +
21. H am m ath G ader I + + 42. cE n ‫־‬G edi I + +
II + II + +
III + + III + +
22. H am m ath- 43. G erasa + + +
T iberias A + + +
156 JEW ISH ART AND ARCH AEOLOGY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY SYNAGOGUE A RC H ITEC TU RE A ND DECORATION 157

W henever the T orah shrine is built on a different wall than usual, the entrance
is aligned on the opposite or side wall. Thus, the location of the T orah shrine deter­
mines the orientation of the facade. An example of this is the synagogue at ‫*־‬Arbel
(fig. 1) which probably originally had its entrance on the Jerusalem -oriented wall,
like most other Galilean synagogues. Later, changes occurred, and a niche for the
Ark was built on this wall, necessitating changes in the location of the entrance.
Although the facade consists of three doorways, this triple entrance does not
always lead directly into the nave and aisles. The ■ )Eshtem oca and Susiya synagogues
contain no aisles (figs. 3,5,6). At H am m ath-G ader (fig. 7) the doorways do not corre­
spond to the aisles. It seems, therefore, that the triple-entranced facade had not only
a structural function, but also intrinsic significance. Goodenough (1953:183, 265;
1965:41, 84) suggests it is a symbolic front, directed towards Jerusalem , “ toward
the shekina in all three of its symbolic m anifestations.” A nother, m ore probable, ex­
planation is that the use of the triple entryway represents , a recollection of the
N icanor Gate which was the m ain entrance to the Second Tem ple of Jerusalem (fig.
1,6).
The triple portal is usually com pared to examples of Syrian architecture, particu­
larly to the pagan temples (see K W 1916:147-173; Goodenough 1953:183).
Similarity between these buildings and synagogues is m ore one of a general im pres­
sion than an actual fact. Few of the Syrian pagan temples have triple portals: for
example, the temple of Suweda in the H auran and the Tychaion is-Sanamen (Butler
1903: PI. 118; 1907,V: fig. 292; Hachlili 1971: Pis. 12:1, 17:1,pp. 168-171) have
wider and higher central doorways with two smaller side entrances. Note also that
above each side entrance is a niche. O ther temples have only one m ain entrance,
sometimes with niches flanking it, as, for example, the temples of Atil, H abran, and
Braka (Butler 1903: figs. 121, 123; 1907, V II: PI. 29). The difference in size be­
tween the central and side entryways in the facades of most synagogues is less exag­
gerated than of those in the pagan temples. A further reason for a general impression
of similarity between the triple portal facade of the synagogue (especially the
Galilean and Golan examples) and that of the Syrian pagan temple is the close
resemblance of the rich ornam entation. Nevertheless, it seems that the real reason
for the preference for the triple entrance of the synagogue hall, and its establishment
as a characteristic feature was, as m entioned above, the connection with, and
rem inder of the triple N icanor G ate, the m ain entrance into the Second Tem ple of
Jerusalem (see pp. 25-26).
Several of the synagogue facades, such as the Galilean examples of G ush-H alav
(see M eyers et al. 1979:44), N abratein and M arous (fig. 1) have only one entrance
on the Jerusalem -oriented wall. H urvat Shem ca has a m ain portal set into the north ! j W estern a d d itio n
Original s tru c tu re

B uttressin g îfc A ssum ed nich e

6. Plan o f Susiya Synagogue.

158 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY SYNAGOGUE ARC H ITEC TURE AND DECORATION

Synagogue I
32 50

S y n a g o g u e II

8. Plan of H. Shemca Synagogue.

160 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE A N TIQ UITY
A b) The “Syrian” gable
9. M a coz H ayim Plan, 3 Phases.
wall (fig. 8). M ost of the Golan synagogues have only one entrance (fig. 2,table 2):
the Dikke synagogue with its triple portal entrance is an exception (fig. 13). Four
synagogues (U m m el-K anatir, cEn Neshut, D abiya and cAssalieh, (fig. 2) have their
facades on the Jerusalem -oriented wall. Some of these entrances were possibly
flanked by windows or niches, in a m anner similar to the Syrian pagan temples dis­
cussed above. This feature thus preserves the triple rhythm of the facade. Two other
synagogues have one m ain portal: these are the Jericho synagogue and the M acoz
H ayim synagogue, which has one entrance in phase one and probably two entrances
in phases two and three (fig. 9 ).
SYNAGOGUE A R C H ITEC TUR E A ND DEC ORATION 161
This type of gable surm ounting the facade consists of a pedim ent with its base
curved into an arch, and is an O riental variation of the classical pedim ent (see Avi-
Y onah 1944: 146-147; also Brown 1942: 389, 391, 399; Hachlili 1971: 88-94).
Enough architectural fragm ents have survived from several Galilean and Golan
synagogues to enable the reconstruction of a Syrian gable. Kohl and W atzinger
reconstruct several gables on the evidence of sculptured fragm ent remains: the
B arcami synagogue is reconstructed with a Syrian gable on the portico, the arch sur­
m ounting the two central columns (KW 1916: figs. 186, 191). A nother Syrian gable
based on ornate sculptured fragm ents (KW 1916: figs. 89, 107) is reconstructed on
the upper part of the facade at Chorazin (K W 1916: fig. 191). This reconstruction
has been verified by recent excavations and restoration work (as yet unpublished).
At C apernaum , Kohl and W atzinger (1916: PI. I) postulate that there was a Syrian
gable on the facade on the evidence of fragm ents such as a corner of the gable (KW
1916: fig. 35). In two Golan synagogues, Kohl and W atzinger also reconstruct
Syrian gables: Dikke (fig. 13) and U m m el-K anatir (fig. 14) (K W 1916: fig. 251,
272). M oreover, they suggest that the Syrian gable was constructed along the com­
plete width of the synagogue’s facade and they compare it to the basilica at Shabba,
el M usm iye, and the Tichayon of is‫־‬Sanam en (KW 1916: figs. 285-287).
Some scholars prefer reconstructing a gable along the facade’s width for other
synagogues, for instance at Beth Shecarim (Yeivin 1942: fig. c, p. 13), Beth 5Alpha
(Sukenik 1932: fig. 19) and Susiya (G utm an et al. 1980: 124).
It seems m ore probable, however, that the gable was built on part of the facade
only, that is, a “ narrow ” gable (see fig. 10 ). (See Yeivin (1942: fig. a, p. 75) who
reconstructs a narrow gable for the Beth Shecarim synagogue, like the gables on
most of the Syrian Christian churches (Baccache 1979: figs. 14, 48, 100, 184, 201,
217, 255, 285, 300, 323, 338, 376, 402; 1980: 255-260, 450, 463).) Syrian gables
are also found in N abatean and R om an structures in Syria dating from the first cen­
tury BCE until the third century CE. Examples include the facade of the temple of
D ushara at Si (Butler 1907: figs. 332, 335), the west facade of the temple of Bel, the
city gate of Baalbek, the eastern facade of the Heliopolis tem ple (W iegand 1921: Pis.
4, 27), the facade of the adyton in the Bacchus temple of Baalbek and the round tem ­
ple of Baalbek (W iegand 1921: Pis. 14 and 62).
Taking into account the surviving sculptural fragm ents, it seems possible to
theorise that a few of the Galilean and Golan synagogues did have narrow Syrian
gables over their facades (fig. 10).
 162 JEW ISH ART A N D ARCH AEOLOGY IN LATE A N TIQ UITY SYNAGOGUE A R CH ITEC TUR E A ND D ECORATION 163

11. R econstruction o f C apernaum synagogue.

12. R econstruction o f H . cAm - 13. R econstruction o f D ikke Synagogue.

m udim . Synagogue Facade.
10. R econstruction o f Synagogue B uildings with ‘‘S yrian ” Gable: a) G eneral reconstruction; b)
C apernaum — new reconstruction; c) Barcam — new reconstruction.
164 JEW ISH ART A N D ARCHAEOLO G Y IN LATE ANTIQ UITY SYNAGOGUE A R CH ITEC TUR E AND DEC OR ATION 165

15. Architectural Fragm ent, K azrin Synagogue.

14. R econstruction o f U m m el-K anatir Synagogue.

c) Arched Windows
At least ten of the Golan and Galilean synagogues have a large, semi-circular w in­
dow above a central portal lintel, surm ounted by a richly ornam ented and
sculptured arch, and probably with a m etal grille filling the space. This arched w in­
dow provided an im portant source of light for the synagogue interior. M any of the
Galilean synagogues retain fragm ents of this arch, and at B arcam it is still in place
(PI 21). Fragm ents of this arch were found at C apernaum (KW 1916: PI. I and
a b b .25), Chorazin (KW 1916: figs. 84, 104), and K W propose an arched window
for H . cA m m udim (fig. 12 ) and G ush H alav ( K W 1916: figs 205). Golan
synagogues with fragm ents of this arch include K azrin (fig. 15); here a fragm ent of
a decorated arch was found and holes for a grille are preserved in the upper part
of the lintel, U m m el-K anatir (fig. 14) and Dikke (fig. 13). cAssalieh probably also d) Windows
had such an arched window on the facade. This is an innovative feature of Stone fragm ents in several of the Galilean and Golan synagogues indicate the
synagogue architecture which seldom appears in other buildings (cf. for instance, the presence of windows.
facade of the fifth century Syrian church of Q alat K alota (Baccache 1979: fig. 217). In situ windows are found in the facade of the synagogue at B arcam (PI. 21). Based
on this, Kohl and W atzinger reconstruct elaborately decorated windows in the
166 JEW ISH ART AND ARCH AEOLOGY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY
facades of synagogues such as C apernaum (fig. 11), Dikke (fig. 13), and U m m el-
K anatir (fig. 14), using as evidence fragm ents which m ay have belonged to windows
(see K W 1916: 228-229, 233-234, figs. 8, 22). O ther fragm ents of stone slabs with
bases, colum ns and capitals, which created the frames of the windows, are found in
K azrin (fig. 16), K anef (M aoz 1980: 13), Dikke (KW 1916: fig. 232; M aoz 1980:
11), U m m el‫־‬K anatir (M aoz 1980: 21), Chorazin , N abratein (KW 1916: fig. 200),
and Shura (Foerster 1983a). These were windows of the side walls of the upper
gallery or the clerestorey. The capitals at Chorazin were C orinthian and at K azrin
were decorated with a spiral row (fig. 16). Each window was probably structured
of from four to six stone slabs, each carved with part of the base, column or capital.
2) The Torah shrine: the Focal Point
From ancient times until the present day the T orah (the Scriptures) has been a
m ajor factor in the life of the Jews. Consequently, it became a symbol of survival
and preservation for the Jew s throughout the ages, and is a m ajor constituent of the
Jew ish spirit. R eading the T orah was always the most im portant duty in the
synagogue. It is clear, therefore, that the repository for the Ark of the Scrolls, that
is, the T orah shrine, would become the most prom inent feature of the synagogue.
In fact, the m ajor architectural feature of ancient synagogues was the T orah shrine,
an architectural structure which contained the Ark of the Scrolls, and which was
always located on the Jerusalem -oriented wall. U ntil recently, it was thought by
most scholars that the early Galilean synagogues had no fixed structure for the Ark
of the Scrolls. The accepted explanation was that in early synagogues the T orah
scrolls were placed in a receptacle, a portable chest, probably on wheels, which was
brought into the room when needed; only later, probably during the fourth century,
a change occurred, and as seen in the Beth‫־‬Shecarim synagogue, the Ark was placed
in a perm anent structure in a niche or apse (Sukenik 1934: 52-53; Goodenough
1953, I: 210; Avi-Yonah 1961a: 172; Avigad 1967: 100). O ne very im portant fact
has emerged, however, after recent excavations in Israel: nearly every excavated
synagogue yields either fragm ents, or traces of a site, or the actual site itself for the
T orah shrine, which m ay be classified into the following architectural.categories:
a) A raised platform as a base for the aedicula, m ade of stone or wood.
b) A niche, probably to hold a wooden Ark of the Scrolls.
c) An apse to hold the Ark of the Scrolls and sometimes the m enoroth.
Each of these categories had its own structural form, but all served as repositories
for the Ark. (Some exceptions do exist: synagogues without any traces of a perm a­
nent place for the T orah shrine include U m m el‫־‬K anatir, Dikke, Kanef, cAssalieh,
SYNAGOGUE AR CH ITEC TUR E AND DECORATION 167
Huseifa, Y aphica, N acaran. But most of these are either unexcavated or destroyed
to such an extent that it is impossible to locate the site of the T orah shrine.)
d) Bema. In some synagogues, a bem a was added in front of the T orah shrine.
As confusion exists regarding the m eaning of the term bema, which up to now has
been used whenever a stone base has been found in a synagogue no m atter its site
or size, it would be helpful to clarify and define this term , as well as others which
will be used in the text:
Torah shrine: this general expression denotes the architectural stone structure
which was the housing for the Ark of the Scrolls built on the Jerusalem -oriented wall.
T he enclosing structure is either an aedicula, niche or apse.
Aedicula: this is a stone structure added to the synagogue interior on the Jerusalem -
oriented wall, housing the Ark, and consisting of a stone base and stone ornam ented
facade.
Ark of the Scrolls: the actual ark or chest (usually wooden) which contained the
T orah scrolls stood in a repository, either the aedicula, niche or apse (see also
M eyers et al. 1981: n. 3 on 243).
Bema: this is a raised stone platform built in front of a niche or apse, which did
not house the Ark, and was probably employed in the reading of the T orah.
Types of Torah shrines
a) Aedicula
An aedicula existed in m any synagogues. This is confirmed by two types of ex­
isting fragm ents discovered during excavations: first, a few stones of a stone base
or platform have survived in some synagogues, whereas in others, several (two to
five) courses of stone have been found. This base has been incorrectly called a bema.
O n top of such a base stood a structure usually consisting of a facade, columns, and
lintel, which together created the aedicula. This structure was always built as an in­
terior addition to the already existing Jerusalem -oriented wall: aediculae bases
added to the walls and standing very close to the previously constructed columns,
have been excavated, for instance, at C apernaum , H . Shem ca, and G ush H alav (figs
1,8 ). Second, stone fragm ents found in several synagogues either of small columns
of unusual size or shape, or decorated lintels, have been designated as aediculae.
The form of the aedicula, reconstructed from rem ains found in some synagogues,
consists of a base which is a platform of stones, topped by a structure consisting of
single or double columns (Chorazin, K azrin, figs. 17a,19 and U m m el‫־‬R anatir, PI.
23), supporting a decorated lintel (N abratein, fig. 18, PI. 24). Access was usually
from the front or, in some cases, from the sides (K azrin, Rehov, figs. 2: 2, 3: 7) and
168 JEW ISH ART A ND ARCH AEOLOGY IN LATE A N TIQ UITY SYNAGOGUE A R CH ITEC TU RE A N D D ECORATION 169

17c. R econstruction o f inner facade.

was usually gained by steps (figs. 29, 30). Reconstructions of aediculae have been
attem pted in plans of M eiron (fig. 22), G ush H alav (fig. 21), and in the D iaspora
synagogue of Sardis (in m odern Turkey) (fig. 25).
Aediculae have been found in several locations within the synagogues: i) either
constructed on the inside of the facade wall, the Jerusalem -oriented wall, between
the m ain and side entrances; or ii) flanking the interior m ain entrance on the
Jerusalem -oriented facade wall (two aediculae); or iii) built on the inside of the
Jerusalem -oriented wall opposite or adjacent to the m ain entrance wall.
 SYNAGOGUE A R CH ITEC TUR E A N D DECORATION 171

20. A edicula R econstructions: a) one aedicula betw een the m ain entrance and one o f the side en ­
trances; b) an aedicula flanking the single entrance; c) two aedicula flanking the m ain entrance.

172 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLO G Y IN LATE A N TIQ UITY
22. R econstruction o f M eiron Synagogue.
SYNAGOGUE ARC H ITEC TU RE A N D DEC ORATION 173
i) One aedicula, situated between the main and side entrances, on the interior of the
Jerusalem -oriented south facade, survives in one Golan and several Galilean
synagogues: (fig. 20a, b)
Gush Halav I (fig. 21)—A large rectangular stone structure, dated to the Late
R om an period (stratum V I), extends two m etres beyond the Jerusalem -oriented
wall, west of the m ain entrance. A depression, ca. 0.50 m. x 0. 75 m ., was scooped
out of the structure.
Gush Halav II (fig. 21)—A smaller structure than at G ush H alav I (1.46 m. x 1.17
m. x 0.30 m .) was added during stratum V ila , m id-fourth-fifth centuries, onto the
earlier base. Small architectural fragm ents found am ong debris were probably parts
of an aedicula (M eyers et al. 1979: fig. 7; 1981: 76, Photo on 77).
Meiron (fig. 22) (M eyers et al. 1981: 12, fig.2.5)—T he excavators conjecture an
aedicula on the west side of the m ain entrance.
H. cAmmudim (Levine 1981a: 79)—Several stones form ing a square were found
inside the entrance, in the centre of the south section between the m ain and eastern
entrances and m ay have been a base for an aedicula (K W 1916: 74 and PL 10).
QEn Neshut (M aoz 1981b: 108)—W est of the m ain entrance on the south wall re­
m ains of one stone and stamps of other stones suggest an aedicula (fig. 2, 4). A stone
found near cEn Samsam (Pl. 6) is suggested by M aoz (1981b: 112) to have come from
cEn N eshut, and to have been used there as a base for the aedicula. A nother frag­
m ent of a relief of a lioness m ay also belong to the aedicula (M aoz 1981b: 110).
M aoz (1980: 24) suggests that the aedicula’s position was the reason for the entrance
not being in the exact centre of the southern facade, an explanation he also proposes
for the Golan synagogues of Beth-Lavi and Zum im ra.
ii) Two aediculaeflanking the central entrance and built on the interior of the Jerusalem -
oriented southern wall (fig. 20c) are found at two of the Galilean synagogues and
at Sardis in Asia M inor.
Nabratein—In recent excavations at the synagogue at N abratein several phases
were discovered (M eyers et al. 1981: 36-39; 1982: 40-43): Synagogue I dates to the
second-m id-third centuries CE and Synagogue II is of the late R om an period.
Synagogue I has two stone platforms flanking the m ain entrance, the western
slightly larger. Both protrude 3.0 m. from the inner south wall (fig. 23a). Synagogue
II (fig. 23b) had two phases: H a (250-306 CE), when the platform levels were raised,
and to whose aediculae belong a carved stone arcuated lintel (fig. 18); and lib
(306-363 CE), when the platforms were rebuilt and the dam aged stone lintel was
rem oved from its place and incorporated into one of the renovated platforms. (It
should be noted that in Synagogue III of the late Byzantine phase (sixth century)
no aediculae were found (M eyers et al. 1981: 39; 1982: 43).)
 SYNAGOGUE ARC H ITEC TU RE A ND DEC ORATION 175

Capernaum II (fourth-fifth centuries—fig. 24)— “ Platform s” M and N flanking the

inner side of the m ain entrance on the Jerusalem -oriented facade would seem to be
the bases of two aediculae. They are constructed of a layer of strong lime m ortar
laid over gravel which rests upon a 0.25 cm. thickness of basalt flagstones (Corbo
1975: 118-121, fig. 18, photos 52, 55). (Possibly some fragm ents at C apernaum such
as those illustrated by K W m ay have been parts of such aediculae— see K W 1916:
figs. 21, 22, 70, 71.)
Chorazin—In the renewed excavations of the Chorazin synagogue several base
stones were found attached to the south wall between the central and side entrances.
Some architectural fragments were also revealed, am ong them an elaborately
decorated pillar (fig. 17a‫־‬c). Several stones of the base on the west, inner side of the
Jerusalem -oriented south wall were also recovered. Yeivin (1985:272-273, figs. 1,2,8)
suggests it was a niche.
Small architectural fragm ents found in the synagogue during the course of the
previous excavations point to the existence of an aedicula on the south wall (Sukenik
1934: 24; K W 1916:55-57, abb. 103).
Marous—O n the internal southern facade of the synagogue, one aedicula flanks
the west side of the single central portal, abutting the southern Jerusalem -oriented
wall (fig. 1,8). The west aedicula is in a better state of preservation than is usual:
from three to four courses of stone were found, to a height of approxim ately 1.30
m. The northwest and southwest corners of the aedicula have two antae with bases
carved out of the stone, facing the prayer hall (see PI. 25). Ilan and D am ati (1984-
5:64) propose the existence of a second aedicula on the eastern side of the entryway,
of which only the foundation of its base is preserved. Several architectural
fragm ents, including a gable fragm ent, a small capital, a colum n and some carved
stones which probably belonged to these aediculae, were found inside the cave, in
front of the synagogue portal (Ilan and D am ati 1984-5:65).
Sardis—A typical example of double aediculae was discovered in the D iaspora at
Sardis in Asia M inor (fig. 25a). Flanking the central doorway on the eastern end
of the synagogue hall, two platforms for aediculae (shrines NS and SS) were found,
in synagogue stage 4 (fig. 25; Seager 1972: 426, 434; 1975: 89, fig. 13; also Seager
and K raabel 1983:170).
Depictions of double aediculae on a lintel from Kochav H aY arden (fig. 26) and
on carvings from Beth Shecarim (fig. 27) support the archaeological evidence that
in fact there were synagogues which had two aediculae flanking the m ain entrance.
The existence of an aedicula in other unexcavated Galilean synagogues such as
B arcam is theoretically possible if one takes into account the fact that the southern­
most columns have been erected far enough away from the entrance so as to allow
176 JEW ISH ART A ND ARCH AEO LOG Y IN LATE A N TIQ UITY SYNAGOGUE A RC H ITEC TU RE A N D DEC OR ATION 177

i £

SECTION Y- A

27. Beth Shecarim C atacom b 4, W all o f H all A.

room for an aedicula abutting onto the inner southern facade (fig. 20). Rem ains
draw n by Kohl and W atzinger (1916: PI X II) seem to support this conjecture, as
do the rem ains of U m m el‫־‬K anatir. As the Dikke plan (K W 1916: PI. X V I) shows
that the central section of the south wall is completely destroyed we can only surmise
that an aedicula was situated there, although it would not have been on the facade
wall, which is the western wall in this Golan synagogue.
25. Sardis Syn agogue R econstruction: a) interior looking west; b) interior looking east.
178 JEW ISH ART A N D ARCHAEOLO G Y IN LATE ANTIQ UITY
iii) Aediculae on the Jerusalem-oriented wall facing or adjacent to the entrance: the bases of
these aediculae were usually small, apart from two large ones found at K azrin and
Rehov.
Shemca, Synagogues I, II (fig. 8)—In both phases of the synagogue, a fragm ent of
a stone base on the south, Jerusalem -oriented wall was found (M eyers et al. 1976:
72-73). To this m ust be added fragm ents of columns and capitals adorned with acan­
thus leaves which belonged, M eyers suggests (M eyers et al. 1976: 49, figs. 3.9,3.11),
to the stone aediculae of phase I, although for phase II he proposes a wooden
aedicula on the stone base (Meyers 1981: 74).
Kazrin (G olan)—An elevated (three level) stone base (5.50 x 2.50 m .) was ex­
cavated on the southern Jerusalem -oriented wall (M aoz 1980: 16; 1981b: 105). The
aedicula probably stood on top of the elevation and entrance to it was gained from
both sides of the base, as can be seen from surviving thresholds. A double stone col­
um n (fig. 19), probably belonging to the aedicula, was found in secondary use in
the western aisle (M aoz, Killebrew, Hachlili 1987).
Hammath Gader, phase II (probably fourth century)—A stone base plastered and
painted was found under the apse of phase III on the Jerusalem -oriented wall, facing
the entrance (Foerster 1983b: 11-12).
Rehov II, III—In phase II (end of fourth-fifth centuries) a large stone base (9.0
m x 3.0 m .) was constructed onto the south, Jerusalem -oriented wall (fig. 28). The
base was flanked by stairs on both sides, so that the approach to the aedicula was
from either side, as at K azrin (fig 2,2). Several small, limestone columns, bases and
capitals, and a fragm ent of a limestone sculptured block ornam ented with a lion
were found in secondary use incorporated into the base of phase II (fig. X , 13). They
probably belonged to a phase I aedicula (fourth century) (Vitto 1981a: 165, Pl.
24:1). In phase III (sixth-seventh centuries) the base was enlarged, the side stairs
were blocked and two wing stairs were built in front. A low wall was also added
parallel to the facade, probably to hold the chancel-screen found there (Vitto 1980:
215-216; 1981: 93).
It is significant that both the aediculae of K azrin and Rehov are larger than usual
and both synagogue entrances are situated on the opposite wall.
M a coz Hayim I (A) (end third-fourth centuries)—A stone platform protruded into
the m ain hall in the centre of the southern Jerusalem -oriented wall (fig. 9). It was
probably enclosed by a m arble screen (Tzaferis 1982:217-218, figs. 2-3).
H. Rimmon III (sixth-seventh centuries)—O n the north, Jerusalem -oriented wall
several stones of a rectangular base (5.0 m. x 1.70 m .) survive (K loner 1980b: 227;
1983b: 69).
SYNAGOGUE ARC H ITEC TURE AND DECOR ATION 179
Excavations at two Ju d e an sites suggest the likelihood of the presence of an
aedicula in both synagogues. If this is correct, then it m ust have replaced the niche
as Ark repository:
H. Susiya (G utm an et al. 1981: 125)—the secondary eastern base m ay have been
an aedicula in a later stage.
cEn-Gedi III (Barag et al. 1981: 117)—An aedicula base m ay have existed in (later)
synagogue III in front of the square niche.
b) Niche
T he niche is a stone structure built inside the Jerusalem -oriented wall during the
fourth century, to serve as a repository for the Ark of the Scrolls. Niches were con­
structed in two forms (also M aoz 1972: 18-25):
i) A semicircular structure constructed as an addition to the internal wall, pro­
truding from the wall into the m ain hall and approached by steps. M ost niches have
only their lower part surviving. Its facade consisted of columns (or pillars) sur­
m ounted by a semicircular arch decorated with a conch. T he niche was sometimes
decorated like the Dura-Europos niche (PI. 27) or had a relief facade with flanking
pillars and a conch decorating the arch. These facades probably closely resembled
the aediculae facades described above.
ii) The second form of niche is rectangular and was built as the result of blocking
an entrance, thus dictating the rectangular form.
From the size of the niches it seems reasonable to infer that an Ark was placed
inside the niche, as depicted on the Susiya mosaic (PL 104).
i) Semicircular niches
Naveh—A niche was found on the wall of a building identified as a synagogue,
about 2.20 m. above the floor, flanked by two carved pillars and with a conch
decorating it (M ayer and Reifenberg 1936: 8, fig. 8, PL 3).
0Arbel (fig. 1,4)—O n the Jerusalem -oriented southern wall, a niche was originally
built (Avigad 1967: 98-100, fig. 5). It is the sole Galilean synagogue of the common
Galilean-type plan which has a niche.
3Eshtemo^a—O n the north, Jerusalem -oriented wall, three semicircular niches
were built, approxim ately 2.0 m. above the floor, and approached by steps. The cen­
tral niche is larger than the two flanking side niches. A later niche was added to the
front of the form er ones, possibly replacing them (Yeivin 1981: 121; also M aoz
1972: 27).
Susiya—A small niche is assumed to have existed on the centre of the north
Jerusalem -oriented wall, similar to the DEshtem oca niche (G utm an et al. 1981: 124).
180 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE A N TIQ UITY
The most famous niche of this type is in the D iaspora synagogue of D ura-
Europos, dating to the m id-third century (PI. 27).
[On M ount Zion, Jerusalem , the building now called “ D avid’s T o m b ” might
have been a synagogue structure with a niche on its north wall, possibly dated to
the fourth century (Pinkerfeld 1960: 41, 43, fig. 1.]
it) The rectangular niches (fig. 3), which were created mostly as a result of blocking
an entrance seem to indicate that an earlier stage had employed a different T orah
shrine (aediculae?), but no proof has been uncovered (fig. 3).
Hammath Tiberias A —Four small columns enclose an area on the Jerusalem -
oriented southern wall. This probably created a rectangular niche (Slousch 1921).
Hammath Tiberias B —A small rectangular and raised room apparently served as
a type of niche or as a repository for the A rk (D othan 1981: 65; 1983: 30-32; Avi-
Yonah, 1973:41, calls it a square apse). A depression was found in the floor at the
western part of the room and probably was used for the genizah (see p. 192-193).
Beth She^an B —smgll synagogue—The southern Jerusalem -oriented wall was a
relatively thick wall, and a niche is assumed to have been built in its centre (Bahat
1981a: 82).
Beth Shecarim II —The central door was walled up in the synagogue building and
a niche was added inside (M azar 1973:18; Avi-Yonah 1961a: 174).
cEn-Gedi I I —This synagogue’s northern Jerusalem -oriented wall had an entrance
which was later blocked by a wall which created a rectangular niche 1.50 m. x 0.40
m. (Barag et al. 1981: 118-119).
H . Rimmon I —A rectangular niche was found on the northern Jerusalem -oriented
wall, plastered with red bands (Kloner 1983b: 67).
c) The apse
W ith the innovation of the apse as repository for the Ark in the late fifth century,
the T orah shrine became an integral element in the synagogue building and was con­
structed at the same time as the building itself. It was usually a semicircular struc­
ture extending outside the m ain hall, along the width of the nave, approached by
steps and sometimes having a decorated mosaic floor. Its facade probably consisted
of columns and an arcuated lintel decorated with a conch (see figs. IX 22, 23).
Some scholars suggest that the apse’s structure evolved from that of the niche
(Sukenik 1935: 165; Galling 1956: 176; see also M eyers etal. 1981: 241, who suggest
that “ the sacred niche was transm itted to Christianity in the form of the apse” ).
However, the necessity for a larger, perm anent place for the Ark and other
ceremonial objects seems to be the most logical reason for the development of the
SYNAGOGUE ARC H ITEC TU RE AND DECOR ATION 181
apse. It was m uch larger than the niche or aediculae, and, therefore, could house
the Ark and probably the m enoroth which were also needed in the ceremony.
T he dom inant feature of most of the synagogues built during the sixth century in
the Beth She^an Valley and in the southern part of the Land of Israel is the apse
(fig. 4). U p to now, no Galilean or Golan synagogues containing apses have been
discovered. The two synagogues of H am m ath-G ader and M acoz H ayim had their
aediculae replaced by newly-built apses in the fifth century (fig. 9).
Hammath-Gader III, (fig. 7) (Sukenik 1935: 122, fig. 10)—O n the south wall re­
m ains were found of an apse ( 4 . 5 0 m . x 2 . 1 0 m . ) with steps leading up to it. It had
originally been partitioned off by a screen (Sukenik 1935: PI. V illa ). The floor was
lower than the highest step, and was paved with plain mosaics.
Beth She\n A (fig. X I ,2) (Zori 1967: 149-152)—The apse in the southern wall of
the synagogue probably had two levels. It was built 0.50 cm. above the floor level
of the hall. Set into the floor was a large fragm ent of plaster which m ay point to fur­
niture such as a wooden Ark (see p. 273) having stood there.
M a Qoz Hayim II, I I I (B,C ) (fig. 9) (Tzaferis 1982: 218, 220, 222, figs. 5, 6, 7, Pis.
30A, 31 A )—T he apse was added during the later two phases (fifth century), and
replaced the earlier aedicula. An apse which protruded about 3 m. was built on the
southern Jerusalem -oriented wall. It probably had a higher floor level than that of
the m ain hall, and m ay have been enclosed by a chancel screen (found in fragm en­
tary condition). D uring phase III (C) a bem a was located in front of the apse and
a sunken area was added in the rear part.
Beth-Alpha (fig. 4,5) (Sukenik 1932: 13)—The apse was built in the middle of the
southern wall of the synagogue. Three narrow steps led to the floor of the apse which
was 0.75 cm. above the floor of the hall. Two rounded cavities were found on the
surface of the lower level of the platform , and probably held the columns which bore
the curtain (parochet).
Jericho (fig. 4,1) (Baramki 1936: 75)—At the southwest end of the nave two steps
led to the semi-oval apse, the walls of which were not bonded into those of the
synagogue.
N acaran (fig. 4,6)—The southern part of the structure was destroyed, but it prob­
ably included an apse (Sukenik 1932: 53; V incent 1961).
M a con (fig. 4,3) (Levi 1960: 6-7)—The semicircular apse stood on the Jerusalem -
oriented wall on the axis of the building, and was constructed of limestone ashlar
(width 3.20 m ., depth 1.8 m .). A small cavity in the pavem ent of the apse probably
indicates the site where the Ark stood.
Gaza (fig. 4,4) (Ovadiah 1981: 128)—An apse, some 3.0 m. in diam eter is conjec­
tured to have existed at the southwestern end of the building.
182 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY
Gerasa (figs. 4,7; IX , 33a)—A square protruding apse was found on the eastern
Jerusalem -oriented wall. Sukenik (1932:53) m aintains that the form is not that of
an apse, but rather a small square cham ber projecting from the western wall.
Hammath Tiberias B —Level I, the latest synagogue (D othan 1981: 68). Three steps
led up from the southern end of the nave to an apse built within the external wall
of the building.
d) Bema
The bem a is a raised stone podium or platform added to the wall found only in
front of the niche or apse. Several theories have been advanced as to its function in
the synagogue building. First, the simplest solution suggests that some of these addi­
tional podia served as footholds for ascending to the niche or apse; second, that it
m ay have been used as a support for holding other ritual objects, particularly the
m enoroth. This could be the explanation for the bem a in the synagogues of Susiya
and cEn-Gedi where the niche itself is too small to have held m ore than the Ark (see
also Barag 1977 III: 779 for M acon); and third, the bem a could have served as a
platform for prayer, for reading the T orah and for reciting the lessons of the week
(see Sukenik 1934: 57) for example, at the synagogues of Beth 5Alpha, M a Goz-
H ayim III, and H am m ath Gader.
In fact the problem of where the T orah was read in the synagogue has perplexed
m any scholars. Some suggest the stone bases found in the Galilean synagogues, such
as at H . Shem ca (M eyers et al 1976: 72, note 44), were used for T orah reading, but
these are, in actual fact, bases for aediculae. M eyers contends that one of the two
aediculae at N abratein served for reading (M eyers & M eyers 1981:242; M eyers et
al. 1981a: 36-37). O ther scholars suggest that the reading of the T orah was per­
formed on a raised podium , probably m ade of wood and placed in the centre of the
synagogue (Avi-Yonah 1961a: 172). A depression for a stand was found in N abra­
tein synagogue I (mid-second century) (M eyers & M eyers 1981: 36; see also the
D ura-Europos synagogue, K raeling 1979: 256). At the Sardis synagogue four slabs
of m arble were set into the floor in the centre of the hall, creating a small structure,
probably a bem a (Seager 1972: 426 and note 8).
Two kinds of bem a were found in the synagogues: those which stood in front of
a niche, and those which stood in front of an apse.
i) Bema in front of a niche -
yEshtemoca— A protruding rectangular structure is built in front of the three niches
on the northern, Jerusalem -oriented wall (fig. 5). It has a semicircular niche in its
SYNAGOGUE A RC H ITEC TU RE A ND DECORATION 183
centre. Yeivin (1981: 121) proposes that this is a bem a. O thers assume that it is a
later-period niche which had replaced the previous one.
Susiya (G utm an et al. 1981: 125- 126)—Two bem a were found on the northern
Jerusalem -oriented wall (fig. 6)., T he m ain bem a stands slightly to the west, and is
said to have undergone various changes: it had two steps approaching the niche, and
posts and chancel screens were built around the bem a which m ay have served to hold
the m enoroth. The secondary bem a further to the east has a mosaic pavem ent in
front of it.
cEn-Gedi (Barag et al. 1981:117-118)—In front of the semicircular niche (on the
northern Jerusalem -oriented wall) is a rectangular area which enclosed a mosaic
panel, form ing a bem a m easuring 2.0 m. x 4.0 m. At the four corners of the bem a
are small sockets which held the posts of a wooden chancel screen.
Traces survive on the cEn-Gedi and Susiya secondary bemoth which suggest they
possibly had canopies erected over them. It is also possible that these bemoth served
as platforms for reading the T orah.
ii) Bema in front of an apse (also M aoz 197-2: 29)
Beth z'Alpha (Sukenik 1932: 13, PI. V I, 2; fig. 47).—A small bem a is built in front
of the apse (1.55 m. long, 0.90 m. wide, 0.45 m. high) and has a step leading up
to it.
M a Qoz Hayim III (Tzaferis 1982: 222-223)—A bem a (2.0 x 6.0 m .) was built in
front of the apse, in the third phase . It protruded into the nave and was paved with
stone slabs, laid on an earlier mosaic. A screen surrounded the area of the bema.
Hammath Gader (Sukenik 1935: 32, but see Foerster 1983b: 11-12)—A bem a was
found in front of the apse in its centre. It is of the same length as the apse (4.55 m.
long and 1.20 m. wide). Two steps lead up to its centre, and posts and a chancel
screen were found which probably stood on either side of the steps.
Gerasa (Sukenik 1935: 166)—Traces of a panel projecting into the nave indicate
that a bem a m ay have stood in front of the apse.
M a con (Levi 1960: 7; Barag 1977, 111:779). A platform , that is, a bem a, is built
(0.75 m. x 0.60 m .) in front of the apse. A sunken area, the width of the nave, ex­
isted in front of the bema. Four post-holes are visible in the mosaic floor, and may
have held the posts for a veil (C —F in plan).
The Form of the Torah shrine
The form of the T orah shrine can be reconstructed by reference to artistic rendi­
tions on stone and mosaics, and by architectural fragm ents belonging usually to
aediculae, found in excavations of synagogues.
184 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE A N TIQ UITY SYNAGOGUE A R CH ITEC TUR E A N D DECOR ATION 185

a) Artistic renditions of the Torah shrine (fig. 29 and fig. I X ,24)

i) Several stone and clay reliefs depict the facade of the T orah shrine: a frieze frag­
m ent from C horazin (PI 28), a relief fragm ent from Chorazin (fig. 29), a lintel frag­
m ent from Kokhav H aY arden (fig. 26), a lintel from cAssalieh (PI 29a), the relief
on the Shell sarcophagus (fig. 30), a depiction on a clay lam p, the depiction on the
black ceramic fragm ent from N abratein (fig. 29) and its comparable design on a clay
lam p.
ii) O ther stone reliefs as well as mosaic pavem ents render the T orah shrine facade
with an Ark inside it (see also p. 273ff.) (fig. 30). T he drawings and incision (PI. 31)
on the Beth Sheacrim catacomb walls, a stone relief from Pekiin (PI. 32), a stone tomb
door from K far Yasif (PI. 33), stone plaques (PI. 34), a lam p and a stone screen from
Susiya, all depict the T orah shrine. The shrine is also depicted on mosaic pavements
in the synagogues of H am m ath Tiberias, Susiya and Beth She^an (fig. 30 and
P is.101-103).
All these renditions portray a uniform T orah shrine facade consisting of usually
two, but sometimes four, columns which carry an arcuated lintel (straight or gabled)
decorated with the conch m otif (figs. I X ,22,23). The Ark depicted inside these
facades takes various forms (see pp. 273-278).

b) Architectural Fragments of Aediculae

Architectural fragm ents presum ed to be from aediculae are also helpful as an aid
in reconstructing the T orah shrine’s design. The best preserved examples consist of
columns, lintels, reliefs and mosaic pavements.
i) Small basalt columns: a richly decorated column from Chorazin (fig. 17a), a
double column from K azrin (fig. 19), a small double colum n capital of basalt with
an eagle relief from U m m el-K anatir (PI. 23 and fig. IX ,24c), and a relief from
Z um im ra which depicts a column and a lion, m ay have belonged to aediculae (M aoz
1981b: 104). T he Dikke fragm ents of the base and capital of a double column,
usually identified as window fragm ents (K W 1916:123, fig. 246-7), m ay have been
aediculae fragments. Fragm ents of columns and capitals were also found at H .
Shem ca (p. 178). In the C aesarea synagogue the sole rem ains are several small stone
columns which may have belonged to a stone structure (perhaps an aediculae) (Avi-
Yonah 1975, I: 279). Some stone fragm ents were found at M arous (Ilan and D am ati
1984-85:65).
29. T orah shrine depictions.
ii) Lintels thought to have belonged to aediculae have been excavated at various
sites, such as the outstanding N abratein lintel (PI. 24; M eyers et aL 1981, 1982), the
limestone fragm ent from Rehov which depicts a striding lion (fig. X , 13), and several
fragm ents of basalt reliefs found in the Golan (now displayed in the K azrin
m useum ). These fragm ents, however, have been usually ascribed to windows.
 SYNAGOGUE ARCH ITEC TUR E A ND DECORATION 187
186 JEW ISH ART A ND ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE A N TIQ UITY

iii) Reliefs portraying lions or eagles m ay have been elements in aediculae or­
nam entation, as seen in mosaic pavements, such as at Beth DA lpha(seep. 361. PI. 102).
Similar reliefs have been found in several synagogue ruins in the Golan (Zum im ra
PI. 35). Three-dim ensional sculptures of lions m ay also have been used for the or­
nam entation of aediculae, for example, the lions found at Chorazin, B arcam, and
C apernaum (fig. X , l l and see p. 328).
W hereas synagogues containing actual aediculae and niches portray in their ar­
tistic renditions an Ark standing within an aedicula or niche, the synagogues with
apses such as at Beth 5Alpha, Jericho and N acaran portray on their mosaic
pavem ents the Ark independent of any enclosure. This Ark probably stood by itself
inside the apse.

Additional elements associated with the T orah shrine to be discussed below are
the chancel screen, the veil and the genizah. A chair of Moses was also part of the
interior decoration of some synagogues.

Chancel Screens
Screens have been found in several synagogues. They were used to separate the
T orah shrine (the repository for the Ark) from the public prayer hall of the
synagogue. The chancel screen was also a characteristic feature of the church of the
same period. It served to cordon off the m ain hall from the bem a where only the
clergy were allowed to enter.
The screen was formed from several components: posts surm ounted by capitals
with a vertical groove on either side; a m arble slab was inserted into the grooves of
the posts (fig. 31). The chancel screen was decorated, sometimes on both sides, and
occasionally inscriptions were added, probably because of the prom inent position of
the screen, (Sukenik 1935: 67). Com plete chancel screens as well as fragm ents have
been found in synagogue excavations. M ost come from synagogues in the south, the
Beth She‫*־‬an area, and from around Lake K inneret. No screens, on the other hand,
have been found in the Galilean and Golan synagogues.
In several synagogues screen slabs and posts have been found in the area of the
apse or aedicula: in the Beth She^an synagogue the negative of a screen was found
(Zori 1967: 154, 157, Pis. 27:5, 31:4, 32:1); in Rehov III a m arble screen and two
posts were discovered (fig. 32) (Vitto 1980: 215-216); in the M a coz H ayim III
synagogue fragm ents of a screen were found (Tzaferis 1982: 223, PI. 36C, D); in
30. T orah shrine depictions.
H am m ath Tiberias several fragments of screens and posts were found (Sukenik
1935: 60, Pis. X III, X IV ). A screen (PI. 36) found during excavations in the town
188 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE A N TIQ UITY
31. Screens.
of Tiberias m ay have come from a synagogue. In the apse area of the synagogue
of H am m ath G ader fragm ents of a screen were found (fig. 32) (Sukenik 1935: 32,
58-60, PL X V IIB).
M any m arble fragm ents of posts and chancel screens coming from installations
around the bema were found in the Susiya synagogue, either plain or decorated (most
are not yet published). M any contain incised H ebrew and A ram aic inscriptions
(Yeivin 1974). At cE n‫־‬Gedi small sockets were found at the four corners of the bem a
and are considered by the excavators to have held the posts of a wooden chancel
screen. At Beth Shecarim , Avi-Yonah suggests (1961a: 173-4) that a reading plat­
form was surrounded by a chancel screen. At the G aza synagogue fragm ents of four
SYNAGOGUE A R CH ITEC TUR E A ND DECORATION 189
decorated chancel screens were found (PL 99a, b). Several of the screens found are
the only indication surviving of a synagogue’s presence, as for instance in the case
of the screens from ‫*־‬Ashdod (fig. 32) and ‫*־‬Ascalon (Pl. 37 a, b).
Screen Ornamentation
The chancel screen slabs are decorated in carved, stylized ornam entation, using
openwork and drill technique (Susiya and Gaza, Pl. X ,12), but sometimes they are
merely incised (Gaza, fig. 32). M ost of the screens are decorated with a frame which
encloses carvings of various motifs:
1) The m enorah is the most popular motif. Alone or flanked by ritual objects, it
is shown enclosed by a stylized wreath with flowing ribbons which sprout into leaves.
This design is found at H am m ath G ader, DAshdod, G adara, on a screen of unknow n
provenance similar to the one at G adara, and at Rehov (fig. 32). A m enorah flanked
by ritual objects is depicted on screens from G aza (fig. 32), DAscalon (Pl. 37). A
m enorah flanked by birds is depicted on screens from Tiberias (PL 36; see also
pp. 335-337). A screen from the Susiya synagogue is carved and has two lam ps
suspended from it (fig. IX , 18).
2) A screen found at the synagogue of Susiya portrays a T orah shrine with the
Ark inside (fig. IX , 23).
3) Screens decorated with leaves form ing medallions filled with grape bunches,
leaves and pom egranates are found at H am m ath Tiberias (done in relief), G aza
(worked in drill technique, PL 99), and Susiya (Yeivin 1974: Pis. 49A, B, G, I; 43A,
C ).
4) Geom etric designs are found at G aza (Pl. 99) and Susiya (Yeivin 1974: Pl.
44E).
5) Figurative motifs: stylized birds flank the m enorah (Tiberias Pl. 36) and
heraldic lions and eagles appear on a screen from Susiya (G utm an et al. 1981:125).
6) Floral designs appear on the screen from DAscalon (PL 37), and on the reverse
of the H am m ath G ader and Rehov screens (fig. 32; for Rehov, Bahat 1973: PL
48B).
M any screens bear votive inscriptions incised on the slabs and posts (Sukenik
1935: 67), which usually comm emorate the donors (Yeivin 1974:201).
Similar screens have been found in C hristian churches, and depict crosses in place
of the m enorah. These screens m ay have served as prototypes for the synagogue
screens. M oreover, the screens m ay have come from the same workshop, or have
been modelled on the same general patterns, as can be attested to by the similarity
of the synagogue screens from DAshdod and H am m ath G ader (fig. 32) on the one
190 JEW ISH ART A ND ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE A N TIQ UITY
’A SH D O D
tfAMMATH GADER
G AZA
32. Screens w ith M en orah O rnam entation.
hand and the church screens from Beth She^an (Avi-Yonah 1981a: PI. 16:4, 5) on
the other. T he screens in synagogues are dated to the sixth century which is the same
date as the sim ilar church screens. W hen found in excavations, their provenance is
usually the area of the T orah shrine. It seems the screen’s purpose was to enhance
the im portance and prom inence of the T orah shrine. Furtherm ore, the screen was
SYNAGOGUE A R C H ITEC TURE AND DEC OR ATION 191
32. Screens with M enorah O rnam entation.
an appropriate place for donors’ comm emorations, and became a m ore convenient
site for inscriptions than the previously-utilized mosaic floor. T he absence of chancel
screens in Galilean and Golan synagogues should be noted: these same synagogues
also lack apses.
T hus, the chancel screen (although possibly im itating a church prototype where
it acted as a barrier between the congregation and the clergy) in the sixth century
synagogue served a different function as a token partition between the T orah shrine
and the synagogue hall.
The Veil· (Curtain), Parochet
T he veil, or curtain {parochet) hung down in front of, and screened the facade of
the Ark or the T orah shrine. The existence of the veil is known by 1) rem ains found
in synagogue excavations and 2) by artistic depictions on synagogue mosaic
pavements.
1) At Beth DAlpha, two round holes have been cut into the lower level of the plat­
form steps, probably for columns which held a curtain (Sukenik 1932: 13; 1934: 56-
57). At Beth She‫*־‬an fragm ents of an iron chain and rings were discovered close to
the apse, PI 103; (Zori 1967: 163, Pis. 32:6, 33:5, 34:8, 10, 11), presum ably belong­
192 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY SYNAGOGUE A R CH ITEC TUR E AND DECOR ATION 193

ing to the veil which is also depicted on the mosaic floor. At cEn-Gedi, traces of posts tained coins, and thus served as a genizah (Sukenik 1935:75). Lately, at the M acoz
and metal ornam ents, possibly from the parochet, were found in front of the niche. H ayim synagogue, a sunken area has been discovered at the back of the apse floor
T he M acon synagogue yielded four post holes, visible in the mosaic floor as veil posts (Tzaferis 1982: 222). At M acon, a small pit was discovered in the mosaic pavem ent,
(Levi 1960: 7, C-F in plan), and bronze veil rings (R ahm ani 1960: 16). At Susiya, and presum ably served as a com m unity chest (Levi 1960:7).
in a corner adjacent to the eastern bem a, a stone colum n is preserved. G utm an et T he genizah in most of these synagogues usually yielded coins, and probably
al (1981:125-6) propose that this is part of a canopy which hung above the bema. served, therefore, as the com m unity’s hiding place for its treasure and for discarded
Similar post holes, presum ably for veils, were also found in the D iaspora synagogues scrolls.
of D ura Europos (K raeling 1956: 257-259) and Sardis (Seager 1975: 109, note 40).
2) Depictions of veils are found on mosaic pavem ents of synagogues: at H am m ath
Tiberias (fig. IX ,8a; PI. 101) the veil is bound and hangs in front of the Ark. In the The Chair of Moses
Beth SheDan A mosaic (PI. 103) three veils are portrayed: one is suspended between
two columns and blocks from view what seems to be the Ark, the second veil is
depicted on both sides of the inner shrine, and the third is pictured above the gable.
T he Beth DAlpha panel of Jew ish symbols (PI. 102) is bordered on both sides with
a hanging veil.
From the above account it can be seen that the veil appears in three different con­
texts: first, covering the Ark only, or blocking it from view as at H am m ath Tiberias
and in the Beth She‫*־‬an A mosaics (PI. 101, 103); second, screening the T orah shrine
(aedicula, niche or apse), as depicted in the Beth She^an mosaic, and third, fram ing
a complete complex consisting of apse and m enoroth, as seems to be depicted in the
Beth ‫־‬A lpha mosaic (PI. 102).
Thus, the veil was a T orah shrine fixture, which hid the Ark from view or
33. Seat o f M oses from H am m ath xy- 34. Seat o f M oses from
screened the front of the T orah shrine from the prayer hall, and was probably draw n
Tiberias. C horazin.
aside only when the Ark was in use (but see G oodenough (1954,IV: 135, 139) who
associates the curtain with the tabernacle curtain and the Holy of Holies “ that the
real presence, or Shekinah though hidden from all comm on gaze, was there” ). A nother interior feature appearing am ong the furnishings of the synagogue was
the “ C hair of M oses,” a stone seat m entioned in ancient literature (Sukenik 1934:
The Genizah 57-61; Avi-Yonah 1961a: 167). Two types were found in synagogue excavations:
1) A very beautiful basalt stone seat carved from a single stone was found at
In several synagogues an unusual feature has been observed in the T orah shrine C horazin (fig. 34). It is decorated with an A ram aic inscription on the front, with a
area. A depression (cavity) has been found in the base, and seems to indicate the carved rosette on the back, and has sculptured hand-rests. T he H am m ath Tiberias
position of a genizah behind the Ark for the com m unity chest and for fragm ents of A seat is carved out of limestone (fig. 33). It is partly dam aged and was found in situ
scrolls. In the Galilean synagogue of G ush H alav I, a rectangular depression (0.50 next to the southern Jerusalem -oriented wall. A nother m arble seat was found in
m. x 0.75 m .) was found in the early base, close to the southern wall (M eyers et al. Delos, Greece (Sukenik 1934: 61, fig. 19).
1979: 42), similar to one found at N abratein (M eyers et al. 1981a: 242). At K azrin, 2) At the cEn-Gedi synagogue, two steps created a seat which abutted the wall east
the southern rear part of the T orah shrine m ay have served as a genizah. At H am ­ of the niche (Barag et al. 1981: 117). It was identified as the “ Seat of M oses.” A
m ath Tiberias, a sunken pit was found in the western part of the room (D othan similarly built seat was found in the D iaspora synagogue of D u ra Europos (K raeling
1983:31). T he synagogue of Beth 3Alpha had a cavity in the platform which con­ 1979: 17).
194 JEW ISH ART A ND ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE A N TIQ UITY
O pinions differ as to the use of the seat: most scholars consider it the seat of the
elders (Sukenik 1934: 58-59; K raeling 1956:17; Avi-Yonah 1961a: 167) whereas
others believe that it served as a kind of stand for the scrolls during worship and
stood in an aedicula or niche (Yeivin 1985:274-275 and fig. 8).
3) The Gallery
Second-storey galleries are an innovation of synagogue architecture; evidence of
their existence is draw n from several facts: in m any synagogues the columns along
the three sides of the prayer hall are known to have supported a gallery which would
have left the centre of the m ain hall unobstructed. Such an arrangem ent of columns
occurs in the Galilean synagogues of DArbel, Barcam, Gush H alav (cf. M eyers
1979:41), H . cAm m udim , Chorazin, C apernaum , and M eiron, and at U m m el-
K anatir in the Golan (figs. 1,2). The.LJ-shape form of the gallery was dictated by
the rows of columns on all sides of the hall, except for the wall containing the en­
trances (fig. 1; see Avi-Yonah 1961:163-164; Sukenik 1934: 47, 48; Goodenough
1953,1: 182; Avigad 1967: 30). A nother type of gallery was built on the two long
sides of the hall. Such galleries are encountered at K anef and cEn Neshut in the
G olan (fig. 2) (M aoz 1981b: 103, 108), and probably at other synagogues such as
Beth 3A lpha (fig. 4) (Sukenik 1934: 16-19; Avigad 1975,1:188). In several
synagogues the gallery was built possibly on part of the m ain hall only: a second
storey, for example, was built on the west wall at H . Shem ca (fig. 8). A railing or
screen probably separated the gallery from the m ain room of the synagogue (Meyers
et al. 1976: 56-58, fig. 3.10). At Susiya a second storey rested upon the southern
wing (fig. 6) (G utm an et al. 1981: 124).
F urther evidence which points to the existence of a gallery is indicated by the re­
m ains of smaller columns and capitals which probably formed its colonnade and
which have been found at most Galilee and Golan synagogues: B arcam, H . Shem ca,
N abratein, C apernaum , Dikke, U m m el-K anatir, cEn Neshut, cAssalieh and prob­
ably at K azrin and 5Arbel (table 2 and figs. 1,2).
Additional corroboration of the presence of a gallery is seen in staircases found
at excavations which lead to an upper floor, and are usually situated outside the
m ain hall. At C apernaum rem ains of such stairs were found at the northwest, rear
corner, fig. 24a (KW 1916: Pl.II) and a similar staircase was found at the northern,
rear corner of the synagogue at Chorazin (see also Sukenik 1934: 72,). At Barcam
the restored plan indicates a staircase (fig. 1, K W 1916: Pl. X II; but see Seager
1975: note 36). A staircase is also found at G ush H alav, located at the same north­
western end (fig. 21). At H . Shem ca the stairs lead to an upper floor (fig. 8, and
SYNAGOGUE ARC H ITEC TU RE AND D ECOR ATION 195
M eyers et al. 1976:56-58). K anef and cEn Neshut also possessed staircases, probably
leading to a second floor (M aoz 1981:103, 108). At Susiya the steps at the southern
end of the narthex led to a second storey (G utm an et al. 1981: 124). H am m ath
Tiberias synagogue level IIA had a staircase on the north leading to a second storey
or perhaps a roof (D othan 1981:65). Interesting evidence is found in an A ram aic in­
scription on an architrave fragm ent from D abbura (Golan) which reads:
5E^azar the son of (Ra)bbah made the columns above the arches and beams...
It appears that the inscription refers to columns of an upper storey or a gallery
(Naveh 1978: 26-27). At the M acon synagogue the aisles and the southern part of
the nave are paved with limestone slabs, indicating, in B arag’s opinion (1977,
111: 779) that an additional storey was built above this part of the hall. At H am m ath
Tiberias, D othan (1981:65) asserts that the eastern aisle of the synagogue of level
lib (fig. X I, 1) m ay have been intended for female worshippers, with a tem porary
partition being placed between the columns.
The Function of the Gallery
T he most prevalent view am ong scholars regarding the gallery is that it served as
the w om en’s section, which implies that segregation existed between m en and
women in the synagogue (Sukenik 1934: 48; Avi-Yonah 1961: 164; Goodenough
1,1953: 182). Safrai (1963; 1976: 939) objects to this view, stating that he finds no
indication of segregation in Talm udic literature, and m aintains that women prob­
ably gathered along the walls or sat on the back benches; furtherm ore, he states that
as there is no reason to allocate them to the balcony, the gallery m ust have served
other purposes.
In the Galilean synagogues the all-round gallery enabled the onlookers to observe
the central hall and, what was more im portant, the southern, Jerusalem -oriented
wall with its aediculae, for instance C apernaum , M eiron (figs. 24, 22). The same
situation also exists in the Golan synagogue of cEn Neshut. At H . Shem ca, the west
side of the upper storey enabled observation of the aedicula on the southern wall (fig.
35). At Susiya, the upper storey is located opposite the T orah shrine (fig. 6).
O ne fact is certain: it was possible to have an unhindered view of the m ain hall,
as well as of the T orah shrine, from the upper gallery floor.
It seems therefore, that the gallery played an integral role in the synagogue perfor­
m ance centered around the T orah shrine and bema. The gallery enabled the worship­
pers to follow and observe the ceremony conducted below, which implies that it was
built with this purpose in m ind. It had, therefore, a twofold function: first as a
separate area, and second as a m eans of observing and following every rite,
196 JEW ISH ART A N D ARCH AEOLOGY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY
ceremony and form of worship without being observed. T he question still rem ains
as to who would need such a segregated observation post; the most logical answer
seems to be the one already given by m any scholars: that the gallery served as the
w om en’s section.
Conclusions
T he m ajor architectural feature of the synagogue was the T orah shrine. From its
inception following the destruction of the Jerusalem Tem ple, the T orah shrine
became a perm anent fixture in the synagogue building. The N abratein synagogue
I, which already included an aediculae by the mid-second century, corroborates this
hypothesis. Always built on the Jerusalem -oriented wall, the T orah shrine took the
form or structure either of aedicula, niche or apse.
SYNAGOGUE ARC H ITEC TURE AND DEC OR ATION 197
T he preponderance of aediculae found in excavated Galilean and Golan
synagogues indicates that the aedicula was the characteristic structure for containing
the Ark in these regions. In the Beth She^an area, two synagogues possess aediculae:
M a coz H ayim I (in its earliest phase only) and the synagogue of Rehov during all
of its phases. The Ju d e an synagogue of H urvat R im m on (phase III) possibly had
an aedicula. The sizes of the aediculae bases range from 1.46 m. x 1.17 m. (Gush
H alav), to 5.50 m. x 2.50 m. (K azrin II) and to 8.50 m. x 3.00 m . (Rehov).
As has been shown above, aediculae were constructed on two sizes of bases; it
seems reasonable to infer, therefore, that where the base is small (Gush H alav II,
M eiron, cE n‫־‬Neshut and Sardis) the aedicula was erected on the whole platform;
and where the base is large (N abratein, K azrin, Rehov) the aedicula was built only
on part of the platform. In the case of synagogues which possessed two flanking
aediculae, it seems that they had separate functions. O ne aedicula served to house
the Ark of the Scrolls, and the second aedicula m ay possibly have held the m enorah
(Hachlili 1976: 43; 1980b: 59). Incised wall decorations in the Beth Shecarim tomb
(fig. 27) show an aedicula with an Ark inside it flanking the entrance on one side,
whereas on the other side, an aedicula has a m enorah inside. (Cf. M eyers et al.
1981a: 238, 242, who suggest that the second platform at N abratein was employed
as a raised prayer platform for delivery of the priestly benediction. Seager (1972:
434) proposes that the two shrines at Sardis were built for the purpose of m aintaining
sym m etry.)
Scholars have explained the creation of the niche as a result of changing custom,
due to the shrine now being given a perm anent place inside the synagogue (Avigad
1967: 100; Avi-Yonah 1961a: 173-174). A perm anent place for the Ark, however,
had already been established in the early synagogues, as has been shown above, by
the construction of aediculae. Although synagogues with niches have been found
scattered throughout the Land of Israel, there m ay have been local as well as tradi­
tional influences at work, because two of the niched synagogues are located at
Tiberias and three are in Ju d e a (Susiya, ‫>־‬Eshtem oca and R im m on), within close
proxim ity to each other.
Not only is the apse a dom inant architectural feature in the synagogue, it is also
a characteristic feature of churches in the Land of Israel and Syria. However, the
apses of synagogues and churches bear no resemblance to each other, both in term s
of style and content:
1) Synagogue structures always contain one apse. A typical church has one apse
situated between two side chambers, or three apses, but seldom a single apse.
2) T he synagogue apse functions as the container for the A rk and, possibly, the
m enoroth. By contrast, the apse in the church serves as a synthronon—the benches
198 JEW ISH ART A N D ARCHAEO LO GY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY
for the seating of the priests behind the altar, and a§ a bema. This area was devoted
to the priests and their assistants.
3) The orientation of the apse as the T orah shrine in the synagogue is towards
Jerusalem , that is, it is built on the Jerusalem -oriented wall of the synagogue.
C hurch buildings always construct their apses on the eastern wall.
T he concept of the church’s apse is considered by Butler (1923: 14) to have been
copied directly from temple architecture in Syria. M eyers et al. (1981: note 4 on 243)
contend that synagogue apses influenced those of the churches.
It seems reasonable to assume that the large bases found in front of apses and
niches functioned as reading and prayer platforms, although the possibility still re­
m ains that they occasionally served simply to provide access to the T orah shrine.
However, whenever a synagogue had two aediculae, the second most likely housed
the m enorah, rather than serving as a prayer platform .
All three types of repositories were constructed of stone, were elevated on bases
and approached by steps. The T orah shrine was the receptacle for the Ark of the
Scrolls which took several forms, and was probably m ade of wood (see p. 273ff.).
Typological differences in the T orah shrines should be attributed, either to local
preferences, popular vogues or historical development. Chronologically, the
aedicula is the earliest type of T orah shrine, already in existence by the second cen­
tury, and the most popular type in Galilean and Golan synagogues. Several
aediculae dating to the fourth century are known also from H am m ath G ader II and
Rehov. At Rehov the aedicula was in use throughout synagogues II and III (fourth-
seventh centuries). The M acoz H ayim synagogue I aedicula is dated to the third-
fourth centuries and was replaced by an apse in the fifth century. The southern
synagogue of H . R im m on included an aedicula throughout the sixth century. O ther
synagogues, such as Susiya and cEn-Gedi, possess aediculae in their later phases.
In the Galilean and Golan synagogues the aediculae usually continued in use during
the third and until the sixth century, probably due to the conservatism of the con­
gregation and local traditions. These synagogues underw ent no changes in struc­
ture, design, or ornam entation during three centuries of use and consequently there
was also no change in the T orah shrine.
T he round niche developed during the fourth century and was preferred in some
locations such as in the Ju d e an synagogues. However, when the niche was created
by blocking previously built entrances, its shape is rectangular. C onstruction of new
synagogues in the sixth century shows a significant change in synagogue architecture
by the addition of the apse as T orah shrine enclosure. Several renovated synagogues
had their aedicula or niche replaced by an apse already in the fifth century
(H am m ath-G ader and M a coz H ayim ). In the sixth century the apse was an in­
SYNAGOGUE A RC H ITEC TU RE A ND DECORATION 199
tegrally planned structure. The aedicula, on the other hand, even though built to
be used as a perm anent structure, was an appendage built onto the original internal
wall only after the synagogue building had been constructed.
T he bem a placed in the front of the niche or apse probably served as a convenient
area for reading the T orah, as it would have been in close proxim ity to the place
where the scrolls were stored. Noteworthy is the fact that neither apse nor bema has
been found in any of the Golan or Galilee synagogues.
T he most striking feature of synagogue architecture is the fundam ental uniform ity
of design am ong synagogue structures. Differences occur, however, when certain
structural features have to be adapted to liturgical requirem ents, for example, to the
changes in form of the T orah shrine (aedicula, niche and apse) or to the development
of the m onum ental facade in Galilean and Golan synagogues. Synagogue plans were
uniform and from the beginning took the form of a hall divided by columns into
nave and aisles. These m ain characteristic features were usually adopted, but the
builders of each synagogue felt free to improvise other structural features, which
resulted in a variety of synagogue designs difficult to classify; an exception to this
diversity is the northern groups of Galilean and Golan synagogues which retain con­
siderable uniform ity of structure.
Generally, the Jews tended to use a spacious hall to serve the congregation for
reading the T orah and for prayer, but added the specific features of T orah shrine,
benches, and gallery to suit their particular needs. Synagogue plans differ according
to fashion and local building practices, the congregation’s needs and financial
resources, as well as according to the social standing of the donors. Nevertheless, an
originality of design can be distinguished in the characteristic triple facade of the
building, and in the ornam entation infused with Jew ish motifs and symbols.
B) Synagogue A rt
T he most impressive synagogue ornam entation is seen in the Galilean and Golan
synagogues which are extensively adorned with ornate exterior facades, and other
architectural decoration within the prayer hall itself. A few other synagogues display
rem ains of similar ornam entation such as ‫>־‬Eshtem oca (PI. 21, Goodenough
1953,111:figs. 609-616) and H . R im m on (K loner 1983b: 67). Further artistic
embellishments include pavements decorated with mosaics which became the m ajor
adornm ent of the synagogue hall during the fourth-sixth centuries: m any mosaics
depicting figurative images came into vogue during the fourth century. Some
synagogues had stone slab floors while others used plaster to floor the halls. Frescos
covering the walls were a further m ethod of synagogue decoration.
200 JEW ISH ART A ND ARCHAEOLO GY IN LATE A N TIQ UITY

1: Architectural Ornamentation
The facades of the northern group of synagogues are richly ornam ented sug­
gesting that the synagogue was m eant to impress and attract attention. The
synagogue of C apernaum , for example, which is built and decorated in white
limestone, m ust have been conspicuously impressive am ong the black basalt
buildings surrounding it. The interior is usually kept plain, except at C apernaum
and Chorazin where a rich frieze decorates the hall (Avi-Yonah, 1961a: 167, suggests
decoration of the upper gallery). A rchitectural ornam entation consists of relief work
on lintels, gables and arches, architraves, friezes, capitals and pedestals. M ost
synagogue sculpture consists of reliefs carved in either limestone or hard basalt
stone, found predom inantly in synagogues in the Galilee and Golan. The only
known sculpture in the round is that of the lions which probably flanked the Torah
shrine (also Avi-Yonah 1961a: 170, see p. 324).
Styles of synagogue architectural decoration were the result of reciprocal influ­
ences of east and west which were also im portant in the development of sculpture
styles in all the arts of the area, Jew ish, N abatean, Rom an-Syrian and Parthian.
As m entioned above, the northern group of the Galilean and Golan synagogues
exhibit considerable uniform ity in their stone construction, architectural plan, and,
prim arily, in their richly ornam ented portals and facades which differ from
synagogues in other parts of the Land of Israel. It will be necessary, therefore, to
describe and discuss these m onum ental facades in detail, according to entrance
frames, lintels, capitals, and architraves.

a) Ornate facade entranceframes

T he entrance-fram es can be divided into three different types, differentiated by
the ornam entation on their lintels and doorjambs.
Type A (fig. 36): these portals have a m oulded stone lintel usually decorated on
the face, the upper part form ing a torus-like decorated frieze. The lintel was sup­
ported by two doorposts which were undecorated, m oulded monoliths. The
synagogues of C apernaum , C horazin and B arcam had consols flanking the central
lintel (Pl. 38); the Tybe synagogue in the Golan also had such a feature. To this type
belong lintel types I, II, V, and V I (discussed below).
Type B (fig. 37): this type is characteristic of the facade’s side entrances. The en­
trances have a moulded stone lintel which is decorated on its face and sometimes had
a torus-like frieze; it is supported by two doorposts carved as pilasters and crowned
with Doric or C orinthian capitals (see C apernaum , fig. 51a,b and H . cAm m udim ,
fig. 12 and H . Sum m aqa (fig. 39) (D ar 1984: phot. pp. 73,75)). Lintel types III,
and IV belong to this type.

38. O rnate Entrance Frame T yp e C , cA ssalieh.

202 JEW ISH ART A ND ARCHAEOLO GY IN LATE A N TIQ UITY

3, 62 ------------- a — 7.32 ------------------- 3,±S> 707 - *

O 3 S 7m

39. H . Sum m aqa facade.

K azrin Facade.

Type C (fig. 38): this entrance type is characteristic and peculiar to the Golan
synagogues. Its m ain feature is the richly carved single entrance whose structure
consists of a m oulded lintel and doorposts constructed of several ashlar basalt stones
on Attic bases. These are usually decorated with a continuous carved frame (see
K azrin, fig. 40; cAssalieh, fig. 38 and H . Kanef, fig. 41. In the first two synagogues
the lintel has a broad carved band consisting of a heraldic design). A similar lintel
43. L intels, T yp e I M ouldings: a‫־‬b) Barcam; c-e) M eiron; f) N abratein; g) G ush H alav; h) 3Arbel;
i) C horazin.
204 JEW ISH ART AND ARCH AEO LOG Y IN LATE A N TIQ UITY
P
44. Lintels, T ype I: N abratein and G ush H alav .
was found at Tybe (fig. 42) and similar doorposts come from D abbura (M aoz
1981b: 109), Z um im ra (M aoz 1981b: 104), D abiya (M aoz 1980: 19) and Savitan
(M aoz 1980: 33). Lintel type V III belongs to this type of entrance frame. T he only
Galilean synagogue with this entrance-fram e type is C horazin (PI. 39); however the
lintel here bears no ornam entation .
SYNAGOGUE A R CH ITEC TUR E A N D DECORATION 205
A m arked difference exists between entrance-fram e types A and B on the one
hand, and type C on the other: first, the doorposts of types A and B are each m ade
of a m onolith, whereas the doorjam bs of type C are composed of several stones with
Attic bases. Second, the decoration of the portal is concentrated on the lintel in types
A and B, whereas type C has a frame-like ornam ent carved on the lintel and door­
posts, with an added design on the lintel face itself.
Entrance-fram es of Galilean and Golan synagogues are frequently com pared to
the portals of contem porary Syrian pagan temples and churches. M ost of the Syrian
pagan temples have richly ornam ented portal frames with a floral ornam ent on the
lintel and doorposts. M ingled classical and O riental designs are carved on the
m ouldings. Portal frames with all-over carved ornam entation are already found in
the first and second centuries in the Syrian H auran, and in N abatean temples (see
Butler 1916: ill. 330-332; 328; 339-41; 1919: ill. 371, 376-7). In R om an temples,
such as the Tychaion is‫־‬Sanam en and others (Butler 1915: ill. 288, 292, 317, Pis.
X IX , X X V II) similar portal frames are encountered, for instance, at the Palm yran
temples of Baal Sham in and Bel (see W iegand 1932: Pis. 49, 67, 72, 79), and at the
Baalbek temples of Dionysius and Bacchus (W iegand 1921, I, Pis. 28, 29, 85; 1923,
II, Pis. 8, 25, 67, 68). Christian churches continue the tradition of this carved or­
nam entation, but are less elaborately decorated (see Butler 1903: 133, 136, 144, 146,
191-2, 196, 203, 239, 332, 360, 407). Fourth century north Syrian churches are or­
nam ented with similar floral and geometric all-over patterns which usually extend
to the doorposts (Baccache 1980: Pis. 166-167, 177-178, 208, 233, 242, 280-283;
some have a cross in the centre of the lintel decoration— see Baccache 1979: fig.
342).
Syrian-R om an portal frames carry an all-over pattern design which is usually con­
tinued on the doorjam bs, and is most similar to the Golan synagogue entrance
frames. Usually, however, no figurative elements are depicted on the lintel (cf. the
soffit of the lintel at the Baalbek temple, W iegand 1921: fig. 38, Pis. 67-8). General
appearance of the ornate portals is similar; however, synagogue ornam entation
deviates from the common Syrian-H auranian architectural style in its rich and
varied patterns and designs. The them atic variety of design and the style of carving
of synagogue architectural decoration indicate an independent development,
although influenced by neighbouring art.
In conclusion, it can be said that carved ornam entation in north and south Syria
flourished from the first century BCE at least until the seventh century CE and in­
cluded decoration of temple gates, houses and churches. Developed by local artists,
and thus difficult to classify and date (see Butler 1903: 37 f f , 316 ff.), the style takes
into consideration the hard basalt stone in which it is worked and exhibits
206 JEW ISH ART AND ARCH AEO LOG Y IN LATE A N TIQ UITY SYNAGOGUE A RC H ITEC TU RE A ND DECORATION 207

peculiarities which are the tradem arks of individual artists. These peculiarities and
distinctions are even further foregrounded when figurative elements and Jew ish
symbols in synagogue ornam entation are interpreted by local artists (see lintel types
below).

b) Ornamented Lintels
The three types of ornate entrance frames are associated with several different types
of lintels. M ost Galilean lintels are m oulded in two parts which consist of a wide
lower part which itself is divided into three fasciae alternating with irregular caveti,
and a narrow er upper part decorated with a convex frieze. Lintel decoration is
divided into nine different types:
Type I: the lintels are m oulded, with three fasciae and without decoration on the
m ain section. Sole ornam entation consists of a frieze on the torus-like upper part.
This type of decoration is found on the lintels of N abratein, G ush H alav, 3Arbel (figs
43,44), and the side entrances of B arcam (Pis. 21,40) and Dikke (fig. 9, K W 1916:
220), which all have identical designs of laurel leaf or scales decorating the convex
frieze (the G ush H alav lintel has a decorated soffit depicting an eagle flanked by
garlands - fig. X ,20a). The N abratein lintel is also decorated in the centre with a
carving of a m enorah inside a wreath (PI. 108, fig. 44). The lintels of M eiron and
°A rbel have no decoration at all (PI. 22 and fig. 44).
Lintels of type I fall into two groups distinguished by their m oulding style and by
their size. The M eiron and B arcam central portal lintels are similar in m oulding and
size: both are 0.80 cm. high and their convex friezes are 0.20 cm. high (fig. 43). The
G ush H alav, N abratein and ‫*־‬Arbel synagogues are similar to each other in
mouldings (identical to the B arcam side portal lintels except that the convex frieze
is lower). This could indicate either a change in requirem ent due to the smaller
single entrance at Gush H alav and N abratein, or a change in m oulding style.
T he H . Shem ca lintel (fig. 50) which m ay belong to this group should be noted. 45a‫־‬c. Lintels (with N ikae), T yp e II: a) Barcam , b) D ikke, c) R am ah.
The lintel is not m oulded, and portrays a m enorah as its only decoration. The H .
Sum m aqa central portal lintel probably belongs to this group (fig. 44a; also D ar
1984:74). R am ah (fig. 45c), all of which portray a wreath flanked by victories. A similar lintel
Type II: this type includes lintels m oulded in two parts. The m ain front is decorated fragm ent was found at the Dikke synagogue (Golan) (fig. 45b). Similar lintels, such
with a central heraldic design, usually a wreath flanked by Nikae or eagles which as the Safed lintel, are carved with wreaths flanked by eagles (fig. 46a). Two similar
hold the wreath and the torus-like upper part is decorated with a convex frieze of lintels were found at D abbura in the Golan (fig. 46b,c) but lack the decorated upper
floral or geometric motifs. The lintel is surrounded by a cyma-moulded geison. This frieze.
type is encountered on the Barcam central entrance lintel (fig. 36, PI. 40a), the A fragm ent of a lintel from C apernaum (fig. 52g) has its upper part decorated
smaller Barcam synagogue lintel (PI. 40b and fig. 45a) and a lintel said to come from with a winding vine frieze; its lower part is broken. To this type belong also two dif-
JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE A N TIQ UITY

46a‫־‬d. Lintels (with Eagles), T yp e II: a) Safed, b ‫־‬c) D ab-

burah, d) Ja p h ica.
210 JEW ISH ART AND ARCH AEOLOGY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY

49a-c. L intels, T yp e V: a‫־‬b) C apernaum , c) K azrin side entrance.

ferent lintels from ‫>־‬Eshtem oca each with a similar floral frieze on the upper part. O n
one lintel is depicted the symbol of the m enorah and on the other medallions filled
with geometric and floral patterns (Goodenough 1953, III :figs. 615,616).
Type I I I : m oulded lintels decorated with a carved central design form type III. The
upper part of the lintel is formed of geometric and floral designs in a torus-like
decorated frieze. These lintels rest on two fasciae m oulded doorposts (C apernaum ,
fig. 47).
Type IV: this lintel type is decorated with an antithetic design completely covering
the lower wider part and is surm ounted by a narrow decorated floral frieze (fig. 48).
Type V: the lintel’s m oulding is found only on its undecorated upper frame fasciae,
the lower wider part is decorated by a tripartite design which consists of a central
m otif flanked by two different motifs (see also Avi-Yonah 1981a: 100-103). Examples

50. Lintels, T yp e V (with M enorah): a‫־‬b) C horazin, c) N aveh , d)

J ap h ica, e) Sarona, f) Sh em ca.
212 JEW ISH ART A ND ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE A N TIQ UITY SYNAGOGUE A R CH ITEC TUR E A ND DECOR ATION 213

are the C apernaum lintels of the side court walls (fig. 49a,b), the K azrin side door
lintel (fig. 49c), the :)Eshtem oca lintel (Goodenough 1953, III: fig. 613), and the H .
cA m m udim central entrance lintel (fig. 12) portraying an am phora flanked by two
lions with their feet on a bull’s head. Two lintels from C horazin depicting a m enorah
flanked by wreaths (fig. 50b), and two m enoroth flanking a floral m otif decorate the
internal side portals of the Chorazin facade (fig. 50b, l ib ) (reconstructed by Yeivin
1985:fig. 2), and are similar to the Naveh lintel (fig. 50c) as well as to the Ja p h ica
lintel (fig. 50d) where a m enorah is flanked by two rosettes. To this type also belong
some m enorah lintels from other sites, such as :)Eshtem oca (Goodenough
1953:111,fig. 613) and Sarona (fig. 50e), and the interesting lintel from Kohav
H ayarden where the m enorah is flanked by two aediculae (fig. 26).
Type VI: these lintels are divided into three metopes by guilloche frame and lines
decorated with a central object, such as a wreath or a lion, flanked by floral,
geometric or anim al designs. To this type belong the lintels of C apernaum (fig. 51a-
c), and the lintels of the two side entrances at H . cA m m udim which each depict what
seems to be a lion in the centre flanked by rosettes (K W 1916: figs 139-141). O n
the Ja p h ica lintel (fig. 5 Id) a wreath is flanked by two eagles. To this type also belong
the Safsaf lintel (fig. 51e) with a scroll frame within which is a wreath flanked by
two bull’s heads; a lintel fragm ent from Fahm a (Goodenough III 1953; fig. 558);
and a lintel from C apernaum with a fram e of a wavy vine flanking a vase (fig. 52e).
A similar fragm entary lintel was found at K asyun. Kohl and W atzinger (1916: 160-
161) compare lintels to wood and stone coffins as well as to wooden screens that, in
their opinion, were built around the synagogue gallery. Avi-Yonah (1981a: 101)
notes the tripartite arrangem ent of the lintels in comparison to decoration on
ossuaries. (Foerster (1972: 103-105) suggests that this lintel type is specific to
synagogues; he dates them to the second century because of the K asyun inscription
(see p. 396).
Type VII: these lintels are decorated with antithetic designs: a central wreath or vase,
with vine branches issuing from it, sometimes term inating in am phorae, as appear
on the lintel from Naveh (figs. 52a,b). A similar lintel from Naveh has its vine ter­
51. Lintels, T yp e V I: a‫־‬c) C apernaum , d) Jap h ica, e) Safsaf.
m inated by two m enoroth (fig. 52c). A fragm ent of a lintel, from B athra in the
Golan, is carved with the same design (fig. 52d). A central vase is carved on lintels
from N abratein (fig. 52f) (its upper part has a decorated frieze similar to type I), m ain entrance lintel is carved with a wreath in the centre flanked by pom egranates
and on the lintel from ‫*־‬Ahmedieh (Golan) (fig. 52h). Fragm ents of probably similar and am phorae (fig. 53a). At cAssalieh the lintel is carved with a T orah shrine flanked
lintels were found at C apernaum , Chorazin (fig. 52g, 52j) and on a side entrance by a m enorah on either side (fig. 53b). At Tybe the lintel bears a w reath flanked
at H urvat K anef (Golan) (fig. 52i,depicting birds pecking at grapes). by two elaborately carved rosettes in medallions which term inate in two branches
Type VIII: these lintels are characteristic of some of the Golan synagogues. They (fig. 53c). All these lintels are decorated on their upper parts by convex friezes with
contain carved ornam ental heraldic designs on their flat surface. At K azrin, the an egg‫־‬and‫־‬dart design which, at K azrin, cAssalieh and Tybe, (figs. 39-40,42) is con-
 SYNAGOGUE ARC H ITEC TU RE AND DECOR ATION 215

54. Lintels, T yp e IX : N aveh.

52. Lintels, T yp e V II: a‫־‬c) N aveh; d) Bathra; e) Daliah; f) Nabratein;

g) C apernaum ; h) ‫־‬,A hm edieh; i) K anef; j) C horazin.
216 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE A N TIQ UITY
tinued on the doorposts. At H . K anef the lintel is carved with a frieze of vine b ran ­
ches and elaborate designs of acanthus leaves and palm ettes (fig. 41).
Type IX: these lintels all from Naveh (fig. 54) are decorated with an inhabited
m eander frieze.
T he most common lintel types in the Galilean synagogues (and elsewhere) are
types I, II and V, which are all similar in their mouldings and type of design. Type
V III is specific to some of the Golan synagogues.
All lintel type ornam entation exhibits the elements characterstic to Jew ish art of
the period, that is, antithetic (heraldic) designs, floral and geometric subjects, and
anim ate or inanim ate themes including Jew ish symbols such as the m enorah. M ost
of the lintels exhibit a preference for carving using the optic treatm ent, one of the
principles of O riental art. Lintel decoration is carved on several planes. For in­
stance, on the K azrin synagogue m ain entrance lintel, the wreath is depicted in
highest relief, and the two flanking am phorae are placed in a square carved out of
the lintel in shallow relief, whereas the pom egranates are depicted on the lowest
plane (fig. 53a, Pl. 39b). O n the cAssalieh lintel the aedicula and the two dots on two
of the m enoroth branches are in high relief, whereas the flanking m enoroth are in­
cised in shallow relief (fig. 53b). A similar two-plane relief is encountered on the
Ja p h ica lintel (fig. 50d). The Tybe lintel is carved in at least two different planes (fig.
53c).
Classifying synagogues according to their different types of lintels m ay also help
to solve the problem of their dating (see pp. 396ff.). T raditions in northern Israel and
Syria were very strong, yet even so a developm ent can be traced from the earlier
m oulded lintel types I and II which have either convex frieze decoration on the u p ­
per part (I), or a heraldic design on the front (II) (fig. 43). All these lintels bear the
same profile m oulding and belong to the Galilee synagogues of the third century.
Development of the other lintel types seems to have evolved from the earlier type
I into the m any rich and elaborate carved designs (types II-V II). C apernaum has
various types of lintel designs which are unique to this synagogue (types III and IV),
but are also related to other synagogue lintels (types I and II).
c) Capitals
Synagogue capitals are elaborately decorated. Three m ain orders are prevalent in
synagogue architecture: first, the C orinthian capitals, usually massive, and the most
comm on (Pl 42a,b)(see Avi-Yoriah 1961a: 165-166; Fischer 1984); second, Ionic
capitals including simple Ionic, elaborately ornam ented diagonal Ionic (Pl 42c,d),
SYNAGOGUE A R CH ITEC TUR E A ND DECORATION 217
and the “ G olan” Ionic (PL 42e); and third, D oric-R om an capitals. These different
orders are used to support different architraves.
The most significant feature of capitals in synagogue architecture is the fact that
decorative motifs are incorporated, usually of Jew ish symbols and emblems. A
m enorah and flanking ceremonial objects appear on C orinthian capitals at C aper­
naum (fig. Pl. 42a). Similar capitals with m enoroth are also encountered on capitals
at H am m ath Tiberias, Caesarea (PL 42b), Beth G uvrin and G erasa. O ther emblems,
such as a wreath and a lulav occur on C apernaum capitals (see Orfali 1922: figs.
19-21). These same motifs as well as others decorate three sides of the highly ornate
Ionic capitals from the Golan synagogue of cEn Neshut: a m enorah flanked by
lulavim (PL 42c), a m enorah and an altar, and flanking birds (PL 42d). Similar, less
ornam ented diagonal Ionic capitals are also found at Dikke and Chorazin, and are
decorated with branches on their volutes. Several Golan synagogues, such as K azrin
and cAssalieh, contain Ionic capitals exhibiting a high echinus decorated with a large
egg. The side volutes are carved with a geometric design and with a line of astragal
around the base (Pl. 42e). Simple Ionic capitals are found at H . cA m m udim and
G ush H alav (K W 1916: figs. 149-154, 215). Simple D oric-R om an capitals are found
in synagogues in the Galilee (Barcam, C apernaum , and M eiron) and in the Golan
(Dikke). U nusual capitals are found in several synagogues: the basket capitals at
U m m el-K anatir (M aoz 1981:106), composite capitals at C apernaum , and convex
“ W ulst” capitals at C horazin (KW 1916: fig. 102).
A nother exclusive feature of synagogue architecture is the double corner column,
the so-called heart-shaped column, found at the rear corner of the row of columna-
tion and the transverse row. These columns are found in m any of the Galilee
synagogues (‫*־‬Arbel, B arcam, H . cAm m udim , C apernaum , G ush H alav and
M eiron—fig. 1), and appear to be a continuation of similar corner columns
in buildings of the Second Tem ple period. A further feature peculiar to
synagogue architecture is the unusual colonettes which flank the windows found in
Galilee and Golan synagogues. The colonettes are fluted and are surm ounted by
small C orinthian capitals (see ‫*־‬Arbel, C apernaum and Dikke: K W 1916: figs. 8, 133,
232, 262).
Rem ains of capitals found in synagogues prove that the Jew s also used common
R om an and Byzantine decorated capitals. However, the added motifs and the
special decoration of some of the Ionic and C orinthian capitals indicate that local
Jew ish craftsmen were working in an original style that can be observed in all aspects
of architectural synagogue decoration.
A few examples of decorated pedestals are also specific to synagogue art. These
are found at N abratein (Goodenough 1953 111:516-517), cEn Neshut (M aoz
218 JEW ISH ART A ND ARCHAEOLO G Y IN LATE A N TIQ UITY
1981b: 108), ‫*־‬Ascalon and Pehora (Ilan 1980: 118). The DAscalon and Pehora ex­
amples are decorated with a m enorah. (PI. 42f)
d) Ornamented Architraves
T he interior of the prayer hall of the synagogue was usually divided into nave and
aisles by two or more rows of columns, which carry m oulded architraves. They are
sometimes decorated with formal patterns or special designs (see cEn Neshut, fig.
55) and are only found in the Golan and Galilee synagogues. The architraves are
surm ounted in one of several arrangem ents: at C apernaum , Kohl and W atzinger
(1916: Pis. IV , V) reconstruct the architrave as having been placed directly on the
C orinthian capitals; at Dikke, Doric columns carried the architrave; at cEn Neshut
an architrave of long basalt stones (fig. 55) was built above the diagonal Ionic
capitals (with their additional side wings). Similar architraves occur also at C horazin
and U m m el-K anatir (M aoz 1980: 23). At K azrin, the m any corbel stones which
were found probably supported arches (arcades) (M aoz 1980: 38). Similarly, the
synagogue of Jericho had two rows of capitals which carried arches (Baramki and
Avi-Yonah 1936: 73).
e) A comparison between the architectural ornamentation of the synagogues at Capernaum and
Chorazin
T he m ajority of surviving synagogue sculpture comes from C apernaum and
C horazin, two splendidly decorated and most im portant synagogues. A comparison
between the style and design of their ornam entation can give a clear indication of,
as well as insight into, the origins and elements of Jew ish art in the Galilee during
this period; furtherm ore it can dem onstrate the vast differences in architectural
SYNAGOGUE A RC H ITEC TURE A N D DECOR ATION 219
styles existing simultaneously. C apernaum is the m ore magnificently decorated, due
to the use of white limestone, com pared to the black basalt of the Chorazin
sculpture. In C apernaum the style of carving is a com bination of Hellenistic and
O riental elements, and is executed usually in frontal relief on shallow planes; some­
times the connection between architectural elements and their decoration seems ar­
bitrary.
The frieze is an excellent example of the contrasting styles in the two synagogues.
At C apernaum , the frieze is a completely interwoven carving of scrolls of stylistic
acanthus leaves creating circles. Emblems of various floral and geometric patterns
are portrayed inside the circles (Pis. 43, 44). By comparison, the C horazin frieze is
sharply-defined and deeply carved, the forms developing out of each other, and leav­
ing no empty spaces (horror vacui). The frieze is intertw ined into the entablature and
is an integral part of the stone block. A most common frieze pattern found at
Chorazin is the round fram e of acanthus leaves which tu rn in a circular m ovem ent
(Pis. 45,46) and are carved more naturally than those at C apernaum . Inside these
frames a variety of motifs are carved: rosettes, conches, wreaths, round objects, but
also images from Greek mythology such as a M edusa head represented frontally as
a mask (PI. 46). Some parts of this frieze are carved on a protruding block (PI. 45),
for example, the carved aedicula which is stylized in deep and skilful relief (PI. 28).
At C apernaum there is a most noticeable difference between the style and execution
of the lintels and the frieze: whereas the form er are usually ornam ented with a
tripartite or antithetic arrangem ent (figs. 49a-c;51a‫־‬c), the latter has a fully inter­
woven carving (Pis. 43, 44). Also rem arkable is a wheeled Ark (fig. 56). It is
depicted in a three dimensional perspective style, rem iniscent of the Hellenistic
m anner. Noteworthy, too, are the Jew ish symbols which appear to be completely
unrelated to the design of the C orinthian capitals (PI. 42a, see also p. 217). The best
example, however, of this style of carving at C apernaum is that of the two consuls,
one on each side of the lintel of the central facade portal, which have been carved
without any stylistic affinity uniting them: the palm trees on front of the consuls are
deeply carved with details, whereas the side volutes are depicted in shallower relief
(PI. 38).
By contrast, the C horazin basalt sculptural decoration, m ore O riental in charac­
ter, is m onum ental, powerful and impressive because of its execution in basalt, and
is furtherm ore a completely integrated constituent of the architecture. The frieze
too, carved with various motifs, is integrated artistically into the entablature. A
skilful harm ony exists between the hard, black stone and the C horazin sculptures,
both in style and perspective. The artist m ust have been highly skilled in the techni­
que of basalt relief and the result is sculpture of the highest quality, for instance, the
220 JEW ISH ART AND ARCH AEOLOGY IN LATE A N TIQ UITY
57. M osaic Floor, M arous.
three-dim ensional sculpture of the lion (fig. X ,10 and p. 324). An exception to this
high standard is the frieze of the vintagers treading grapes, depicted surrounded by
interwoven vine branches (Pl. 47a,b), and executed in a m ore naive m anner. All in
all, the Chorazin reliefs display a sense of order and of correct proportion in spatial
organization.
f ) Golan sculpture
Although it is as yet too soon to talk of a distinctive artistic style when considering
the Golan synagogues, yet certain features emerge which seem to suggest affinities
between them . Golan sculpture is executed in the indigenous, hard, basalt stone,
and the style is original and elaborate (also M aoz 1981b: 112); ornam ental details
enhance architraves, capitals and pedestals ( Pis. 23, 26, 29, 35, 90, 98; figs. 53,
X :9, 12 , 20b). O riginal Golan variations of the Ionic and diagonal Ionic capitals
SYNAGOGUE A R CH ITEC TUR E A N D DECOR ATION 221
with their high echinus are found at cEn N eshut where they are decorated with
Jew ish symbols (Pl. 42d); and at K azrin and cAssalieh the comm on Ionic capital
shows an ornate modification. M uch figuratively carved stone m asonry is found in
the Golan, and most can probably be attributed to local synagogues, for instance the
carved basalt eagles (Pis. 23, 26, 94) and lions (Pis. 26, 35, 90, 92). Golan sculpture
is executed in divergent styles: some show highly stylized reliefs, like the cEn Sam-
sam stone (Pis. 26, 88) and the cEn N eshut lioness (Pl. 90); others show a skilful
competency in the carving such as the relief on the U m m el-K anatir double aedicula
capital which is carved on all sides (Pl. 23); still other sculpture shows simple,
shallow carving, for instance, the cEn Neshut lintel fragm ent, the H . K anef and
D abbura lintels (figs. 46b‫־‬c, 52i) and the relief of a m an from D abbura (M aoz
1981b: 112). T he lintels of the synagogues at K azrin and cAssalieh (fig. 53c; Pl. 41a)
have carvings projecting at various degrees from the plane surface as well as incised
decorations. The carved stone m enoroth at D abiya (M aoz 1981b: 106) also show in­
cised decoration.
To sum up, Golan sculpture exhibits a rich and elaborate variety of styles showing
affinities to the Galilean synagogue sculpture. Although little of the Golan carvings
can compare in excellence of workm anship to the m agnificent sculpture of Chorazin
or C apernaum (Pis. 43-47), some of the frieze ornam entation at Dikke resembles the
ornam entation at Chorazin in artistic quality, even though it is a simpler variation.
2. Floor Pavements
Decorated floors are an integral and im portant feature of synagogue architecture.
They were paved with either a) stone slabs, b) mosaic pavem ents, or c) plaster,
usually on a bed of small stones. Differences in the floor design are due to periodical
changes in the synagogal architecture. In some instances an early mosaic pavem ent,
as at K azrin, would be replaced by a plaster floor; at M arous the mosaic floor was
replaced by a flagstone pavem ent; at M acoz H ayim the opposite occurred and the
stone slab floor of Synagogue I was replaced by mosaic pavem ents in Synagogues
II and III; at H . R im m on the plastered floor of synagogue I was replaced in
Synagogue II by a decorated stone slab pavem ent (see Table 2).
a) Stone slab floors: most of the Galilean synagogue floors are composed of stone slabs,
with the exception of cAm m udim , M arous I and Shem ca which have mosaic
pavem ents, and N abratein I which has a plastered floor. In the Golan, Dabiye,
Dikke and U m m el-K anatir have basalt slab floors. Beth Shearim and M acoz H ayim
I have flagstone floors. Some synagogues possess unusual stone floors: at H am m ath
222 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLO GY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY
G ader II the floor is composed of opus sectile on a foundation of basalt blocks (Foerster
1983). At M acon the nave is paved with mosaic, whereas its surrounding area is
paved with stone slabs which survive in the eastern section (see Levi 1960: 9,
Dunayevski 1960: 22). A unique floor decoration was discovered in the last phase
of the synagogue of H . R im m on (III). T he prayer hall is paved with limestone slabs,
resem bling tiles, on a foundation of packed stones. In the centre, five such “ tiles”
are decorated with carved rosettes, arranged in a square with one rosette in the m id­
dle. N orth of these decorated tiles, a seven-branched m enorah is incised into a slab.
(K loner 1983b: 69).
b) Mosaic pavements (“ In the days of R. A bun [4th century] they began to depict
designs on mosaics and he did not hinder th em ” (J: Abodah Zarah 42b)): mosaic
floors were the principal ornam ent of m any synagogues, m ainly in those lacking
architectural embellishment. These mosaic pavem ents depict figured representa­
tions and are very richly ornam ented with patterns and colours. However,
mosaic floors of earlier periods have been found in recent excavations, indicating
that mosaic floors adorned synagogues as early as the third century, and this in areas
previously thought to be lacking this type of ornam entation, that is, in the Golan
and the Galilee. U p to now scholars have assumed that the change in mosaic pave­
m ent decoration took place in the third-fourth centuries (K W 1916: 145;
Goodenough 1953,1: 239), together with other changes in principles of synagogue
construction, such as those connected with the T orah shrine and the entrances (Avi-
Yonah 1961a: 173). This new m aterial, consequently, will have to be taken into con­
sideration in any future conceptual revisions concerning this subject.
i) Mosaics in Galilean and Golan synagogues: at H . cA m m udim (Levine 198l a : 80) re­
m ains of a mosaic floor with an Aram aic inscription (Levine 1981: photo on 80) and
its foundation were found at the northwest corner of the nave (Levine 1981a: Area
D plan on p. 79). The excavator concludes that the mosaic floor is the original floor
of the building. Thus, this would be one of the earliest synagogues possessing a
mosaic floor, dating to around the end of the third century. A mosaic floor was also
found recently at H . M arous, and is probably the original floor of a synagogue (Ilan
and D am ati 1985). The design of the mosaic is especially interesting and shows a
figure surrounded by weapons, with an inscription “ Yodan son of Shimon M a n i.”
It probably represents David with the weapon he had taken from Goliath (fig. 57,
Pl. 48, see p. 299). This mosaic is dated to the fifth century. At K azrin, rem ains
of a mosaic pavem ent in several colours were found to belong to the second phase
of the synagogue (fifth century). They were used partly as a fill for the later plaster
floor.
SYNAGOGUE A R C H ITEC TUR E A N D DECORATION 223
it) Synagogues with Earlier Mosaics'.
H. Tiberias—level l ib —A geometric design fragm ent of a floor was found in the
nave (D othan 1982: 22,24; Pl. 6:1,7:1-4), and was dated to the third century.
QEn-Gedi—A mosaic floor with a swastika as its central pattern was found
underneath the later bird-decorated floor (Pl. 96a) and is dated probably to the third
century (Barag et al 1981: 118-119).
Susiya—Rem ains of early mosaic floors of white tesserae were found in the hall
under a panelled and figurative polychrome pavem ent (G utm an et al 1981: 126).
M aQon (Levi 1960: 9)—Rem ains of a band of white tesserae were found 0.5 cm.
below the later, and upper mosaic floor.
Beth ‫*־‬Alpha—Two fragm ents of an older mosaic laid under the well-known mosaic
were found. O ne shows a design of a snake’s head and the other, probably, of a
shofar (Sukenik 1951: 26, Pl. X I).
3Eshtemoca (Yeivin 1981: 121-122)—M osaic pavem ents with floral and geometric
patterns, and an Aramaic inscription, covered the hall and narthex floors.
From the above data it can be concluded that mosaics were used to cover floors
as early as the third century, and consisted of geometric designs (cEn-Gedi, H .
Tiberias) sometimes with an inscription (H . cA m m udim ). T hus, contrary to ac­
cepted scholarly opinion, the mosaic floor imm ediately upon inception became part
of synagogue ornam entation; it was also used to decorate some of the Galilean and
Golan synagogues. Figurative, richly ornam ented floors developed during the fourth
century (H . Tiberias) and reached their apogee in the Byzantine period (the sixth
century).
c) Plaster floors: few synagogues were paved with plaster. Only one Galilean
synagogue, N abratein I, has a plaster floor. Noteworthy, in the Golan, is the K azrin
early pavem ent consisting of a plaster floor inscribed with a stone slab pattern. The
latest floor level is covered with smooth plaster on a foundation of stone and mosaic
fragm ents which are rem ains from level II. The cEn N eshut synagogue is also paved
with plaster (M aoz 1981b: 105, 108). The early R im m on synagogue has a com ­
pressed plaster floor laid on a foundation of small stones (K loner 1980b: 227; 1983b:
67)·
Local tradition and fashions were also strong in the m atter of floor paving. The
Galilean and some Golan synagogues preferred the stone slab floors, whereas mosaic
floors prevailed in most of the other synagogues from the fourth century onwards.
Plastered floors were the rarest form of pavem ent (see table 2).
224 JEW ISH ART A ND ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY
3. Frescoes
T he synagogue most famous for its frescoes is the D iaspora synagogue at D ura
Europos, on the Euphrates in Syria (K raeling 1979; G utm an 1973; Goodenough
1964, vols. IX -X I). Synagogue walls in the Land of Israel were also decorated with
frescoes.
Recent excavations of the Rehov synagogue reveal m any fragm ents of painted
plaster which presum ably decorated the internal walls. These plaster fragm ents were
covered with polychrome paintings (mainly in red) of geometric and floral designs.
A very interesting painting portrays a tree-like m enorah and several aediculae, with
columns and other details (unpublished). This synagogue also has plastered and
painted columns on which were w ritten several Aram aic inscriptions (containing
dedications, Halachic laws and other texts of worship) surrounded by wreaths of
vine branches (Vitto 1980: 215; 1981a:92-93; 1981b: 166 and Pl. 24:3; 1983: PL I).
A H ebrew inscription found in the synagogue of Susiya (on the portico mosaic floor
of the courtyard) gives a list of donors who, am ong other things, “ plastered its walls
with lim e ...” (G utm an et al. 1981: 128). This indicates that plastering of the walls
was probably a comm on practice which was financially supported by donors from
am ong the Jew ish congregation.
In several synagogues rem ains of plaster were found, at Huseifa (M akhouly 1934:
118), M acoz H ayim (Tzaferis 1982: 219), H . Tiberias (D othan 1982:22) and Beth
3Alpha (Sukenik 1932: 12, 14). At H . R im m on coloured plaster probably covered
the walls of the early synagogue (Kloner 1983b: 67). T he Galilean and Golan basalt-
constructed walls were covered in similar white plaster: at Chorazin the bedrock at
the northwest corner was incorporated into the building and was covered with
plaster decorated with red pottery sherds and im printed with a herringbone pattern,
characteristic of the Byzantine period. T he same decorative plaster is found at
cAssalieh (M aoz 1980: 17, 18). O ther synagogues in the Galilee and Golan using
this white plaster include H . Shem ca ’s Fresco Room (M eyers et al. 1976: 76 ff.), cEn
Neshut, where one piece of plaster bears an inscription (M aoz 1981b: 108), and
K azrin.
Even though very few frescoed walls have survived, it seems that they were part
of the interior decoration of synagogues, and should be taken into consideration as
one of the various ornam ental features of synagogal art. Frescoes m ay have as prece­
dent the frescoed walls of Second Tem ple period structures, as well as mosaic floors
of the same period (pp. 67-71). This m anner of ornam entation developed into a very
fine and rich art, as can be seen in the extraordinary paintings of D ura Europos;
the Rehov synagogue in the Land of Israel indicates how fresco ornam entation also
included inscriptions of various worship and donor texts, as well as Jew ish symbols.
SYNAGOGUE A R CH ITEC TUR E A N D DECORATION 225
C) S y n a g o g u e I n s c r i p t i o n s
(Naveh 1978; Lifshitz 1967)
Synagogues reveal about fifty Greek inscriptions, mostly dedicatory texts, and
about 110 Aram aic and Hebrew inscriptions, the m ajority of which are Aramaic.
Inscriptions are found either carved on synagogue stone architectural fragm ents,
such as lintels, column bases and chancel screens, or worked into mosaic pavements.
Few are painted on plaster (Rehov—Vitto 1981a: 93). M ost of the inscriptions can
be classified in four groups:
1) Dedicatory inscriptions in com m em oration of the officials and donors of the
synagogue, some of which also m ention the artists or builders of the synagogue.
Dedicatory inscriptions are found on architectural fragm ents as well as on mosaic
floors (PL 49; figs. 34,36). The dedicatory inscription usually begins “ m ay ... be
rem em bered for good,” followed by the donor’s nam e and the sum of his donation,
and ends with a blessing formula, generally the words Amen and Selah. C om m on also
are the words Shalom ( = peace) and “ Peace on Israel” (see the Jericho and Huseifa
synagogue inscriptions, PL 50).
2) Literary texts. Such texts sometimes appear in mosaic inscriptions, the most
notable of which are the cE n‫־‬Gedi inscription (PL 51) and the halachic inscription
at Rehov (PL 52). Because of their uniqueness, these two, seventh century inscrip­
tions are very im portant; they are also the longest inscriptions found to date.
a) The cEn-Gedi inscription (Nave 1978:31-31; Levin 1981b: 140-145) is divided into
four parts (Pl. 51). The first two parts are in H ebrew , the latter two in Aram aic. The
inscription begins with an ancestral list of m ankind (m entioned in I Chron. 1: 1-4),
followed by the names of the twelve zodiac signs, the twelve m onths, the three
patriarchs and the three friends of Daniel. The third part gives a list of donors, and
a statem ent concerning com m unity inform ation and secrets not to be revealed, and
the fourth part lists the names of the same donors as m entioned in the third part.
b) The Rehov Hebrew inscription (PL 52) (Sussm ann 1981, 147) is an im portant
halachic inscription dealing with agricultural concerns, tithes and seventh-year
produce in eight regions of the Land of Israel.
3) Threefragments of marble stones found in ‫*־‬Ascalon, Caesarea and Kissufim contain
lists of the twenty-four priestly courses. This list as reconstructed by Avi-Yonah
(1964: 46-49, fig. 1) consists of twenty-four lines, each line including the num ber
of the course, its nam e and appellation, and the village or town it inhabited after
the destruction of the Second Tem ple. C orresponding to I C hron. 24: 7-19, these
lists of the twenty-four priestly courses inscribed on stone tablets are dated to the
third-fourth centuries and presum ably were fixed to the synagogue wall. By this
226 JEW ISH ART A ND ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE A N TIQ UITY
m ethod the Jew ish comm unities guarded the m em ory and tradition of the courses’
service in the Tem ple, in the hope that as soon as the Tem ple would be rebuilt the
priests would come up to Jerusalem from their various seats and serve again in the
Tem ple. This list identifying the order of the courses was probably composed after
the destruction of the Second Tem ple and the Bar K okhba W ar (135 CE) (Avi-
Y onah 1964: 51-52). Each priestly course, while m ourning the T em ple’s destruc­
tion, also rem em bered its appointed dates of service which were preserved in the in­
scriptions fixed in the synagogues. Lists were incorporated into liturgical poems
during the sixth century (Avi-Yonah 1964:53-54).
T he significance of the list of priestly courses lies in its being used as an accurate
device to count off the weeks of the year: each priestly course served twice a year
(two weeks) in the Tem ple, so that this list serves as a kind of calendar with affinities
to the zodiac signs (Avi-Yonah 1964: 55). Both the inscribed list and the zodiac
panel are essential features in synagogal decoration, and emphasize the im portance
of the Jew ish calendar as a ritual element in synagogue and com m unity life (see also
p. 301ff.).
4) Explanatory inscriptions of names and text were inserted in mosaic pavements,
next to the portrayals of Biblical scenes and the zodiac panels at Beth 3Alpha, H am ­
m ath Tiberias, N acaran, G aza and Ja p h ica (figs IX 35*40 and Pis. 64, 67, 71, 73,
74). A few inscriptions include dates of the synagogue buildings’ erection or dedica­
tion, such as the inscription at Beth 3Alpha, G aza and N abratein (fig. X I. 14).
Position of Inscriptions in Synagogue Design
Inscriptions play an im portant and organic part in floor composition in the
synagogue, and are usually depicted within a w reath or in a tabula ansata. Inscrip­
tions on mosaic floors can be divided into several arrangem ents:
1) M any of the inscriptions occupy the centre of an antithetic design, and appear
in a prom inent position. An inscription flanked by lions occurs in the centre of a
panel at H am m ath G ader and Tiberias, flanked by a lion and a bull at Beth 3Alpha,
and flanked by m enoroth in Huseifa (fig. X I. 14 a-c). These three panels are found
close to the entrance. In the Beth She3an B (small) synagogue three inscriptions are
flanked by antithetic birds (Pl. 85., fig. X I.14.e). At G aza the “ inhabited scrolls”
pavem ent has an inscription flanked by peacocks in the centre medallion of row two
(fig. X I.14d, Pl. 86). These inscriptions have parallels in church mosaic pavements.
2) Inscriptions occupy the front section of the entrances to the synagogues of Beth
She3an A, Jericho, N acaran, Rehov and Susiya (figs X I .2,11,13,14).
SYNAGOGUE A RC H ITEC TU RE A ND DEC OR ATION 227
3) At H am m ath G ader, inscriptions are depicted on the middle panel’s upper
border and two inscriptions are fram ed as part of the geometric carpet in the third
panel (fig. X I. 12).
4) The middle panel of the House of Leontis at Beth She3an has an inscription
fram ed by a wreath and surrounded by birds (Pl. 69).
5) At M acon the inscription is depicted above the “ inhabited scrolls” carpet, in
front of the apse.
6) A unique inscription at cE n‫־‬Gedi fills the west aisle (Pl 51) and the longest in­
scription at Rehov occupies the synagogue narthex (Pl. 52, fig. 28).
The inscriptions, although sometimes occupying a central position in the
synagogue pavem ent, do not always follow the general orientation of the synagogue
hall. See for instance, the front panel in the H am m ath Tiberias mosaic (figs. X ,7a;
X I ,1) and the Gerasa synagogue narthex pavem ent (fig. IX , 33a).
D) CO NCLUSIONS
Origin and Development of Synagogue Architecture
The origins of the synagogue, especially of the Galilean type, have been resear­
ched by m any scholars who have suggested various derivations. Broadly speaking,
these explanations can be divided into those which suggest that the prototype is to
be found in secular Hellenistic basilicae and R om an triclinia (K W 1916: 176-178),
and those which suggest that the Second Tem ple period synagogue is the model for
the later synagogue. The form er view is supported by N etzer (1980a: 113) who pin­
points the prototype to the H erodian triclinium in the Jericho palaces, because of
the similarity of plan and architectural conception. Both the synagogue and the
triclinium served as assembly halls, he argues, and in both the exterior is the a r­
chitectural focal orientation. These seem very unlikely reasons, first because the
function of each assembly hall is completely different: the H erodian triclinium is
secular in purpose whereas the synagogue is used for religious rituals; second,
although the orientation of the triclinium is indeed outside, the focal point in
Galilean synagogues, that is, the T orah shrine, is inside, on the interior of the facade
wall. T he latter view of the origins is advocated by Avigad (1981: 42-44) who m ain­
tains that the M asada synagogue’s plan is the prototype for the Galilean synagogues
and is itself a development of the Hellenistic basilica. Foerster (1981a: 47-48) prefers
a source for the prototype in N abatean temple courts. Both these latter suggestions
(rejected by M aoz 1981a: 40-41; and see T safrir 1981:39-40) are overly concerned
with architectural affinities of colum nation or arrangem ent of benches, however,
228 JEW ISH ART A N D ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY
while at the same time ignoring the most significant feature of the synagogue which
is completely lacking in the prototypes: the T orah shrine, an internal feature and
the focal point of the building, intentionally built on the Jerusalem -oriented wall.
This is an innovation which originated after the destruction of the Tem ple. M ore­
over, m arked differences do exist between the Second Tem ple structures, on the one
hand, and the later synagogues, on the other. D uring the Second Tem ple period,
the m ain ritual practices were conducted in the Jerusalem Tem ple, and the
synagogue structure was merely an assembly hall which included stone benches and
columns. Such synagogue structures possibly had a central focal point but this has
not been decisively dem onstrated (see pp. 87-88). By comparison, the later structures
operated as a combination of congregational assembly hall and, m ore im portantly,
as a place for reading the Scripture. They contained a predeterm ined, perm anently-
built focal point, the T orah shrine, which was established on the Jerusalem -oriented
wall. Such buildings also had to serve as centres for the ritual practices now concen­
trated exclusively in the synagogue, which explains the emphasis placed on the
T orah shrine, which symbolized the sanctity of the place and acted as a rem inder
of the Tem ple. A further fundam ental difference between the Second Tem ple period
assembly hall and the later synagogue lies in the positioning of the benches. In the
earlier structure they were constructed prom inently along all four walls whereas in
the later structure they were oriented according to the location of the T orah shrine
(see table 2 for list of synagogues which contained such benches).
At the same time, some architectural elements are common both to Second T em ­
ple period structures, both religious and secular, and to the later synagogues (as
Avigad suggests, 1981: 42-44), such as the colum nation of the hall, the benches, the
corner double columns of the H erodian triclinia and of the G am la synagogue, and
some motifs of ornam entation (see p. 84).
T he early basalt synagogue of C apernaum , uncovered in recent excavations, is
dated to the first century and exhibits the same plan found in the later (fourth-fifth
centuries) limestone synagogue (pp. 85-86). An im portant example of the develop­
m ent of synagogue architecture is m anifested in the N abratein synagogue (M eyers
et al. 1982: 40-42): synagogue I, dated to the second century is a small broadhouse,
with benches built along the east, west and north walls. Tw in stone bases of
aediculae flank the entrance on the south wall (fig. 23a). Synagogue II, dated to the
m id-third century, is an enlargem ent of the earlier: the north wall was moVed out­
wards to the north, thus creating a longitudinal hall; two stylobates divided the hall
into nave and two aisles; the bases of the two aediculae were raised; the benches w er^
extended to the north; and a portico was added to the south facade (fig. 23b). Thus,
in the m id-third century a building with longitudinal axis and division into nave and
SYNAGOGUE AR CH ITEC TUR E A ND DECORATION 229
aisles was established, and characterized synagogue building plans from then on.
N abratein I also establishes the fact that already by the second century a perm anent
T orah shrine in the form of an aedicula was being built on the Jerusalem -oriented
wall beside the central entrance. This is characteristic of the Galilean synagogues
from this tim e on.
Galilean and Golan synagogues
T he Galilean and Golan architectural style is considered to have originated in
southern Syria. However, careful analysis and consideration induces us to conclude
that the style of the synagogue’s facade and portals as well as technical architectural
details were influenced by the H auranic-R om an style only very generally. The
R om an-Syrian temples were entirely different both in plan and content. T heir triple
portals differ from the facades of the Galilee synagogues: the central entrance of the
form er is usually m uch higher than the side doors and the ornam entation and
m oulding profiles of the lintels and doorjam bs are entirely different. Pagan temples,
considered the god’s abode, were small structures serving only a few priests who p a r­
ticipated in the rites, and usually contained an idol of the god in the adyton (Hachlili
1971: 29-57). The synagogue, on the other hand, consisted of a large building which
had to serve all of the participating congregation within its walls. Jew ish art, as it
is m anifested in synagogue sculpture of the Galilee and Golan, reveals its connection
with the prevailing Hellenistic art. Characteristic O riental elements as well as
Syrian-H auran influences are certainly recognizable in the Jew ish art , but it displays
some novelty and inventiveness in design which grants it consequence. This can be
clearly seen in the architectural features which developed in synagogue construction.
For example, the general facade features, especially the triple portal (or single por­
tal) on the southern, Jerusalem -oriented wall, the ornam ented lintels, the carved
arch above the central portal, are all characteristics specific to Galilean and Golan
synagogues.
T he earliest synagogues whose ornam ented facades bear type A portals are dated
to the third century and are distinguished by lintel type I, an arch above the central
entrance, and a Syrian gable (Barcam, M eiron, G ush H alav I and N abratein II—
fig. 36; at ‫*־‬Arbel a lintel similar to these m ay have belonged to the original southern
entrance). Later synagogues are generally very similar with portal type A facades,
but also have portal type B, and lintel types I-V , with an arch above the central en­
tryway (C apernaum and cA m m udim , fig. 37). The Golan synagogues have im ­
pressive facades but are distinguished by a single portal, type C, and by lintel type
V III (figs. 38,53). The exception is Dikke, which has lintel type I.
230 JEW ISH ART AND ARCH AEOLOGY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY
M any architectural features differentiate the Galilean and Golan synagogues from
the rem ainder of the synagogues in the Land of Israel. Consequently, it would be
useful to consider them separately as a group, and also to compare them with the
other synagogues.
Galilean and Golan synagogues share some common architectural features (also
M aoz 1981b: 113):
1) All the synagogues of this group have stone structures. M ost of the Galilean
synagogues are built of limestone, except for the Chorazin and Shura synagogues,
which, like the Golan synagogues, are built of basalt.
2) O rnam ented facades appear on both Galilean and Golan synagogues.
3) T he outer walls are built of ashlar stones divided by flat pilasters supporting
a cornice (C apernaum and Chorazin).
4) T he most im portant common feature in this group is the location of the T orah
shrine, which is always built adjacent to and on the inside of the m ain entrance
(pp. 173-177 figs. 1, 2, 20). Its location is always associated with the orientation of the
facade, and in the Galilee and several Golan synagogues, is on the southern
Jerusalem -oriented wall. As orientation towards Jerusalem was obligatory for the
T orah shrine, and as the facade of the Galilean synagogues was Jerusalem -oriented,
it follows that the T orah shrine has to be built on the same wall. T here are
exceptions to this rule however: the synagogue of 3Arbel in the Galilee probably
underw ent a later change in the structure: the niche for the Ark was rebuilt on the
Jerusalem -oriented wall and the entrance was then moved to the wall opposite it;
in K azrin in the Golan the T orah shrine in the fifth-sixth century synagogue was
also built on the southern Jerusalem -oriented wall, even though the entrance facade
was constructed on the opposite north wall.
Differences between the Golan and Galilee synagogues lie in some structural
details (see also M aoz 1981b: 113):
1) An ornam ented m onum ental facade with a triple portal is m ore common in the
Galilee (figs 36,37) whereas a single portal facade is m ore common in the Golan (fig.
38; pp. 202-203).
2) In most of the Galilee synagogues the prayer hall has a transverse row of col­
um ns, which adds another widthwise aisle (fig. 1). This row of columns usually has
corner, heart-shaped columns (fig. 1, C apernaum , B arcam, cA m m udim , M eiron,
3Arbel), a feature absent from the Golan synagogues.
3) The columns in most of the Galilee synagogues were built on stylobates and
stood on pedestals. In the Golan, pedestals were only found in excavations at cEn
Neshut. A nother pedestal, probably from cEn Neshut, was found in the Golan
(from Pehora, Pl. 42f).
SYNAGOGUE ARCH ITEC TUR E AND DECORATION 231
An im portant difference between the various synagogues’ decoration is noted in
the emphasis on the exterior in the northern synagogue group, that is, on the facade
with its rich ornam entation which m ust have emphasized the synagogue building
and *must have m ade it stand out conspicuously from its surroundings. The other
synagogues are sparingly decorated on the exterior; the emphasis is on the interior
where the hall is decorated with mosaic pavem ents (discussed in chapter IX). Avi-
Y onah (1961a: 180) m aintains that this sparse exterior decoration reflects the im ­
poverished state of the Jew ish com m unity during the Byzantine period. It seems
m ore likely, however, that the reason for this rem arkable contrast in ornam entation
is that the elaborately decorated facade with triple dr single portals was comm on only
to the northern (Galilean and Golan) synagogues due to local traditions; similarly
decorated facades are traditional in Syrian architecture throughout the R om an and
Byzantine periods. A very im portant feature of Syrian architecture followed by
synagogue architecture is the conservatism of the carving traditions.
Synagogue buildings in other areas of the Land of Israel usually have a frontal
axial courtyard (Beth 3Alpha, Beth She3an, M a coz H ayim , Rehov, Susia, N acaran,
Gerasa, H am m ath Gader, figs. 4,6,7,28) (from sometime in the fifth century onward
the synagogue also has a narthex) which m ade a decorated facade unnecessary.
These facades were not viewed from outside, whereas the Galilean and Golan
synagogues did not use frontal courtyards although some, such as C apernaum (fig.
24), have side courtyards.
Orientation
T he orientation of the synagogue has been m uch debated but generally it has been
accepted that the direction of the synagogue was facing Jerusalem . Scholars m ain­
tain that in the Galilean synagogues, the facade faced towards Jerusalem , whereas
in later synagogues the T orah shrine faced Jerusalem (Sukenik 1934: 50-52, 86;
Goodenough 1953, I: 205-208, 216-218, 254-259). Some exceptions to this rule are
found including Beth She^an A, Huseifa and J a p h ica. (Avi-Yonah 1973: 42). Seager
(1981: 41) proposes that m ore than one tradition existed with regard to orientation
of synagogue structures. It seems most likely, however, that synagogue orientation
was determ ined by the position of the T orah shrine structure which was always con­
structed on the Jerusalem -oriented wall. The congregation inside the hall prayed
facing the T orah shrine, and, therefore, facing Jerusalem (Hachlili 1976: 52). The
T. Meg. IV , 2 states:
“ How did the elders sit with their faces toward the people and their back toward the
qodes and when the chest is set down, it has to stand with its front toward the people
and its back toward the qodes...”
232 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLO G Y IN LATE A N TIQ UITY
This explanation signifies that the Ark of the scrolls stood with its back to the qodes:
in other words, the qodes was the T orah shrine. Prayers were, therefore, conducted
facing the T orah shrine, toward Jerusalem , and although the location of the T orah
shrine always determ ined the direction in which the congregation prayed in the
synagogue, this location did not necessarily coincide with the orientation of the
building itself. In fact, there are several synagogue buildings in which the T orah
shrine is built on the Jerusalem -oriented wall, although the synagogue orientation
is in a different direction, for example, at H . Shem ca,(fig. 8). In other synagogues,
such as at Caesarea, Huseifa and Ja p h ica, not enough of the building has survived
to determ ine the location of the T orah shrine, which could, however, have been on
the southern Jerusalem -oriented wall. Furtherm ore, the local topographical and en­
vironm ental conditions were also factors in determ ining the orientation of these
buildings. Beth She^an A, which some scholars consider to be a Sam aritan
synagogue, has its apse oriented to the west (perhaps towards M ount Gerizim); Avi-
Yonah (1981h: 280) states that the entrances point to the northeast.
In conclusion, it appears that the construction of most of the synagogues in the
Land of Israel (as well as in the Diaspora) took into consideration local topography;
their orientation, however, is always determ ined by the Jerusalem -oriented T orah
shrine structure. Consequently, the differences in synagogue building orientation
depend on local traditions or vogues regarding the location of the T orah shrine. For
example, Galilean synagogues (fig. 1) have facade and T orah shrine both on the
same Jerusalem -oriented wall, whereas the Ju d e an broadhouse synagogues of
‫>־‬Eshtem oca and Susiya have their niches on the northern Jerusalem -oriented wall
and entrances on the east, side wall (figs. 5,6); most of the sixth century apsidal
synagogue buildings are oriented with their apses on the Jerusalem -oriented wall.
The Beth 3Alpha synagogue, for instance, has its apse on the southern Jerusalem -
oriented wall and its entrances on the opposite wall (fig. X I ,3), whereas the southern
synagogues of M acon and G aza have their apses on the northern Jerusalem -oriented
wall and their entrances on the opposite wall. The Jericho apse (fig. 4) is built on
the western Jerusalem -oriented wall and has entrances facing it.
The synagogues of the Land of Israel were not built according to a stereotyped
plan, nor were they designed according to an authoritative law. Synagogue building
plans can be classified in two distinct categories:
1) Those where the longitudinal stone structure is colum nated, has benches, and
is characterized by a richly decorated stone facade (distinctive of the Galilean and
Golan synagogues);
2) Those where the broadhouse or “ basilical” type of building is characterized by
an axial court and narthex in front of the prayer hall, which obviates the need for
SYNAGOGUE ARC H ITEC TU RE A ND DECORATION 233
a decorated facade. These buildings are usually constructed of concrete, and consist
of most synagogues in the Land of Israel.
Furtherm ore, several features encountered in most of the excavated and surveyed
synagogues direct attention to an originality and individuality in their plans. These
features include the T orah shrine, the triple portal, the gallery, as well as various
m ethods of ornam entation of the facade, interior and floors. The highly ornam ented
facade exterior, characteristic of the Galilean and Golan synagogues, is a further
original synagogue structural feature. Differences in plans am ong contem porary
synagogues are usually due to regional and local traditions and local priorities as well
as fashion. Any changes in synagogue designs probably came about as a result of
changes in theological concepts. W hereas Galilean synagogues indicate a preference
for entrances and T orah shrines both on the same, Jerusalem -oriented wall, in other
localities the T orah shrine is on the Jerusalem -oriented wall with the entrance on an­
other. An im portant stage in the evolution of the T orah shrine location is the
developm ent of the apse during the later fifth-sixth centuries.
Scholarly opinion differs concerning the origin of the synagogue building plan and
its sources of inspiration, such as the Hellenistic basilica, pagan triclinium or other
public structures. It appears most likely that synagogue structures were a synthesis
and accum ulation of a variety of plans and architectural features which were
themselves influenced by traditional customs as well as by contem porary vogues,
together with the Jew ish congregation’s social and religious needs. The rich or­
nam entation of the facade, walls, floors and other areas:of the synagogue was influ­
enced by contem porary architectural styles in secular and religious buildings in the
Land of Israel and Syria. A combination and synthesis of all these elements resulted
in a house of worship functionally planned and lavishly decorated by the Jew ish con­
gregation for itself. Utilizing previously-constituted tenets within their own tradi­
tion, the Jew s also adapted various elements of architecture and art from their
neighbours. In this way, they succeeded in creating aesthetic and m onum ental struc­
tures which harm onized with the spirit of Judaism in the Land of Israel.

C H A P T E R N IN E
IC O N O G R A P H Y A N D SY M B O LISM
A) J e w is h Sym bols
Specific Jew ish symbols, such as the m enorah, the Ark and the ritual objects, are
to be found in both synagogal and funerary art. These symbols express profound
and significant values distinctly associated with Judaism , and thus were used fre­
quently throughout Late A ntiquity by Jews in the Land of Israel and in the D iaspora
where they held a prom inent place in the vocabulary of Jew ish art. These chosen
Jew ish religious symbols derived from the Tem ple rites and ceremonies, which is
why only a few symbols were actually used and why the repertoire is so limited.
M any other symbols and images were taken from the contem porary Hellenistic-
R om an world; forms were borrowed but were divested of their original m eaning.
Even if the form of the pagan m otif was appropriated it would be wrong to assume
that its symbolic value was also transferred. O n the contrary, a symbol has a certain
value which is applicable only within its context and which loses significance when
transplanted into another cultural context.
Avi-Yonah rightly warns (1973: 126) “ ...against assum ing that transitory sym­
bolical values, good for their own period and environm ent, can be transferred to an­
other without losing their m eaning. Symbols stand for certain values, and certain
times, and are not good for all eternity.”
Erwin R . G oodenough’s m onum ental and extensive work assembled into thirteen
volumes (1953-1968) deals with the subject of Jew ish symbolism in the Hellenistic-
R om an world, including relevant archaeological and literary evidence.
G oodenough’s thesis is as follows: due to the influence of the Pharisees during the
Second Tem ple period, Jew s did not depict figurative art. After the destruction of
the Tem ple, and because of a weak religious leadership, Jew s accepted symbolism
and ornam entation from the H ellenistic-Rom an world. As both Jew ish and pagan
symbols are portrayed together, they m ust all equally have symbolic m eaning. The
vocabulary of Jew ish symbols is limited, the borrowed motifs being chosen from a
m uch larger repertoire, so that this deliberate, selective appropriation m erits con­
sideration. Furtherm ore, he attributes symbolic m eaning to all motifs, whether a r­
chitectural, floral, geometric or anim al. The Jew s even began to use pagan art in
the full knowledge of its symbolic connotations. Yet with their use in Jew ish
ICO N O G RA PH Y AND SYMBOLISM 235
synagogal and funerary art, these symbols gradually lost their original content and
were given new values associated with a mystic, eschatological belief in im m ortality
and hope for resurrection. The Jews who followed this new mysticism excluded
themselves from norm ative Judaism and were a m ovem ent of Hellenized Jew s who
practiced a mystic anti-rabbinical Judaism . M oreover, norm ative and official
Judaism never perm itted the use of any image or representational art in any period.
G oodenough’s conclusions however have not been accepted, in fact his thesis has
m et with outright rejection (Nock 1955, 1957, 1960; Avi-Yonah 1973; K raeling
1979: 340-346; U rbach 1959; M . Smith 1967; N eusner 1975a,b; Avigad 1976:
283-286).
In the Second Tem ple period, the Jews refrained from using figurative art or sym­
bolic motifs and themes. The motifs used were mostly geometric, floral and architec­
tural although occasionally significant emblems were used, such as the m enorah.
T he aniconic Jew ish art was a result of Ju d a ism ’s defence against the Hellenistic
assault on their religion and culture at a time when the Hellenistic rulers were at­
tem pting to force Jews into idolatry. Jew s kept the Biblical prohibition of “ no graven
im age” (Ex. 20:4; Deut. 5:8), as well as m any stricter laws. Furtherm ore, the
Hellenistic culture was only able to influence the m aterial values such as the or­
nam ental motifs and the language, but could not tu rn the Jew s into Hellenized
thinkers and philosophers. The real threat to Ju d a ism ’s survival from this time on
was from Christianity, which developed out of Judaism and had religious and
cultural affinities with it. This challenge to Ju d a ism ’s independence was even
stronger from the fourth century on, when Christianity became the official religion
of the R om an Em pire. At this time especially the Jew s needed to assert their own
identity and turned therefore to symbolism. They chose specific symbols which the
Jew ish comm unities as well as individuals felt could express their national faith, and
could represent religious ideas with which they could identify.
An interesting example of the way an image sign developed into a symbol m ay
be seen in the case of the m enorah. The m enorah was probably a professional sign
of the priests during the Second Tem ple period, a sign of their duty and office, also
signifying the sacred Tem ple vessel, along with the Table. Only after the destruction
of the Tem ple did the m enorah image change from a specific official and limited
emblem into a symbol of general but profound connotation, thus becoming the
principal Jew ish symbol.
T he essential Jew ish symbols are those phenom enal, unique Jew ish objects such
as the m enorah, the Ark, the ritual utensils and the conch (discussed in this chapter).
G oodenough’s (1958, IV: 44) contention that “ the choice between a m enorah and
a bird eating grapes was a m atter of indifference.. .so m uch had the two come to sym­
236 JEW ISH ART AND ARCH AEOLOGY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY IC O N OG RAPH Y A N D SYMBOLISM 237

bolize the same essential religious a ttitu d e ...” is utterly unacceptable. The motifs
and emblems in Jew ish art borrowed from the pagan world were used either lacking
their original m eaning, for their decorative effect only, or were given a different
significance in Jew ish art. O ther motifs and designs had symbolic m eaning, pre­
viously absent, attributed to them: the zodiac served as a calendar (p. 309), and lions
signified the guarding of the Jewish symbols, the m enorah and the Ark (p. 328).
Jew s carefully selected motifs and iconography of a symbolic character and depicted
them in their synagogal and funerary art. By contrast the Christians seldom intro­
duced sacred symbols on their church pavements as to do so was forbidden in 427
C E by an imperial decree ( Theodosian Code I, tit. V III). Thus, crosses and other
symbols were used for church floors only in a few cases in unim portant places (Avi-
Yonah 1960a: 16).

1. The Menorah
The m enorah is by far the most dom inant and widespread m otif in Jew ish art and
in addition has become one of the symbols of the Jew ish People. Its symbolic potency
is so strong that the founders of the new Jew ish state chose the m enorah, as it is
represented on the Arch of Titus in Rom e (Pl. 53), as the national symbol.
The m enorah, or seven-branched candelabrum , as represented in ancient Jew ish
art consists of a vertical central shaft which supports six branches, three of which
are attached to each side of the shaft. The branches are usually depicted curving u p ­
wards in a semicircle, although in a few cases they are angled, sometimes attached
horizontally to the shaft and then angled vertically upwards. The branches all
usually reach the same height, and are joined by a horizontal bar which is laid across
them . The m enorah usually has a tripod base at the foot of the shaft, but sometimes
a solid base with conical profile is shown. An interesting suggestion is that the
m enorah m ay in earliest times have reflected the shape of a plant or a tree
(Goodenough 1954, IV:73-4; M . Sm ith 1958:497-512; C. M eyers 1976). W hether
this is the case or not, the symbolism has become too stylized for ancient associations
to have survived. O ther im portant questions relate to the places where ancient por­
trayals of the m enorah are depicted and to the m aterials used.
The History of the Menorah
A candelabrum was one of the cult vessels used in temples of ancient times.
C andelabra appear in ritual illustrations, their function connected with light or fire.
Some of these candelabra are similar to the conjectured m enorah of the First Tem ple
(Hachlili & M erhav 1985:257,fig. 1). In the Tem ple the m enorah was lit by the
priests as an im portant element in the ceremony, during the daily ritual, regularly
both in the evening and the m orning, in order to fix the time and order of the other
functions of the Tem ple (Ex. 25:37; 30:8); the m enorah was also lit to m ark im por­
tant events, such as the celebration of the dedication of the Tabernacle (N um . 8:1‫־‬
4). After Ju d a s M accabaeus renovated the Tem ple in c. 168 BCE following his vic­
tory, he lit the lamps of the m enorah (I M acc. 4:49).
O n the three yearly feasts of Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles, the custom was
observed of taking the holy vessels (the M enorah and Table) out to the Tem ple
court. This was done so that the people who came for the celebrations of the feast
could approach them and gaze on them (Safrai 1965:179-180; 1976:891); another
custom was “ draw ing back the curtain (Parochet) at the entrance to the sanctuary
gates” . These customs were not particularly connected to the pilgrimage itself but
were intended m ore to show the people the splendour of the sanctuary and its
vessels. This could explain the incised m enorah and table on the wall of a private
238 JEW ISH ART AND ARCH AEOLOGY IN LATE A N TIQ UITY

house in Jerusalem (fig. 1): someone had seen the vessels and could incise them from
m em ory (Avigad 1983: 147-149).
T he m enorah is not artistically represented before the second half of the first cen­
tury BCE (R ahm ani 1980). The first known and dated depiction is on a coin of the
last H asm onean king, M attathius Antigonus (40-37 BCE) (Pl. 59) (M eshorer
1982,1:93-94). As a result of the struggle in 37 BCE between H erod and Antigonus,
the future of the Jew ish kingdom was determ ined. Antigonus as king and H igh
Priest was supported by the priestly families and others opposed to H erod. A n­
tigonus stressed his priestly heritage and legitim ate lineage by depicting sacred T em ­
ple vessels on the coins he m inted; this was by way of contrast with the contem porary
coins H erod m inted which depicted R om an ceremonial objects (M eshorer 1982, I:
84, 94; II: 19-22). The depictions of the m enorah and the table on the coins of A n­
tigonus were m eant therefore to stress his being a Jew ish king and H igh Priest. By
using them to emphasize his legitimacy, however, he rather dem onstrated the op­
posite, that is, the precariousness of his political position at that time.
Several incised depictions of m enoroth of the H erodian period have recently been
discovered, one of them in the Jew ish Q u arter in Jerusalem (fig. 1); another on a
small stone sun-dial from the Tem ple M ount excavations (fig. 2a), while several
m ore are lightly incised on a wall in J a so n ’s Tom b (fig. 2b). The most famous of
the early depictions is that of the Tem ple M enorah, which appears on the Arch of
T itus,, (Pl. 53, fig. 3) depicted in a panel which shows the Tem ple treasures being
carried out of Jerusalem as booty by T itu s’ troops in 70 CE, after the destruction
of Jerusalem . These early m enoroth have branches which curve upwards, and solid
conical bases. The Jew ish Q uarter m enorah is the first to have decorated branches
as well as to be equipped with light fittings which appear to be lit. All of these are
probably depictions of the m enorah which stood in the Second Tem ple (for a de­
tailed discussion see Hachlili §M erhav 1985). All later representations of the
m enorah seem to be based on this one, the only change to occur being in the base
of the m enorah, which is later shown as a tripod.
T he m enorah is found depicted on reliefs, on capitals, lintels, synagogue screens,
tom b stones and on synagogue mosaic floors. There are several portrayals of pairs
of m enoroth flanking the Ark in synagogue mosaics. Only two working m enoroth,
as distinct from depictions, are known: a stone relief from H am m ath-Tiberias (Pl.
54) and a bronze m enorah from cEn-Gedi (Pl. 57). This is probably because the
value of the m aterials which would have been used to m anufacture ceremonial ar­
ticles, such as gold, silver or bronze, would have rendered them liable to plunder.
Furtherm ore, it is unlikely that wood would have survived from antiquity. Lamps
found in the Land of Israel and the D iaspora show m enoroth depictions with m any

3. T h e T em ple M enorah on the Arch o f T itu s, R om e.

240 JEW ISH ART A ND ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE A N TIQ UITY IC O N OG RAPH Y AND SYMBOLISM 241

interesting forms (see fig. 4). Some indicate that the m enorah was created from
several sections (fig. 4; and Sussman 1982:121).

The Form of the Menorah (fig. 5a, b)

The m enorah usually appears as a seven-branched candelabrum with a light on
top of each branch and the seventh light placed on the centre shaft. From surviving
depictions three m ain components of the m enorah can be identified: the base, the
branches which are reproduced in m any variations, and the light fittings on the top
of the branches.
a) The base (fig. 5). The Biblical text does not describe the base of the m enorah.
A rt works which have survived from antiquity provide us with a num ber of styles.
T he base of the Second Tem ple period m enorah has a conical shape (figs. 1,3).
The m enorah on the H am m ath Tiberias mosaic has a base consisting of a
concave plate borne by three anim al legs (fig.8a; Pl. 101) as do the ivory plaque from
Beth She‫*־‬an (Pl. 58) and the D ura Europos fresco (fig. 11). A realistic portrayal of
three anim al legs is to be seen in the M acon mosaic floor (fig. 14b, Pl. 87), while even
m ore stylized anim al feet are to be seen in the Jericho, Gerasa, Beth She‫*־‬an A and
B synagogues (fig. 5,6). The most common form of base consists of a simple tripod,
with which the very stylized m enoroth discussed above are provided (fig. 5,7). The
m enoroth of the Beth ‫*־‬Alpha mosaic are particularly interesting due to the unusual
way in which the artist decided to portray the tripod bases (fig. 8b, Pl. 102).
b) The branches. A description in Exodus 25:33-36 decrees the shape of the m enorah
which was to be used in the Tabernacle. Each branch m ust consist of three cups
m ade like almonds, which were each to be surm ounted by a capital and a flower.
M any depictions of m enoroth, dating from the period of the Second Tem ple and
later, appear to conform to this Biblical description (see fig. 5a). O ne particularly
ornate m enorah, which probably owes its survival to its being m ade of stone, was
found at H am m ath-T iberias (Pl. 54a, b). It has seven branches, each of which is
constructed of a sequence of alternating pom egranates and cups. The m enoroth
which are portrayed in the synagogue mosaic floor at H am m ath-T iberias are strik­
ingly similar to this stone example found nearby (fig.8a, Pl. 101). A similar example
is carved on a lintel found at :)Eshtem o(:a and a m ore stylized example of a tree
branch is worked into the mosaic floor of a small prayer room at the Beth She^an
synagogue B (fig. 6; Pl. 85). The m enoroth shown flanking the Ark in the Huseifa
(Pl. 56), Beth 3Alpha (Pl. 102), and N acaran synagogue mosaic floors (fig. 8c), are
also equipped with branches in stylized forms of capitals and flowers (fig. 5). A
variant is to be found on the magnificent gilded gold glasses which originally came
242 JEW ISH ART A ND ARCH AEOLOGY IN LATE A N TIQ UITY IC ON OG R A PH Y A N D SYMBOLISM 243

BASE BRANCHES GLASS LAMP BASE BRANCHES GLASS LAMP

HAMMATH
ft J ‫־‬6 0

J â
« J «
HUSEIFA
TIBERIAS

1 J
BETH
/ft. Ê SUSIYA
sis J
h *J J
SHEÂN A

J
J dS J
BETH
ALPHA

J 4
na 'a r a n

J V
5a. Chart with Form s o f M enoroth.
5a. Chart with Forms of Menoroth.
244 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY IC O N OG RAPH Y A ND SYMBOLISM

NAME BASE BRANCHES GLASS

BASE BRANCHES GLASS

MAON

BETH
J ft ft

JAPHIA‘
J
s h e Xn b’

MAcOZ
HAYIM
M, J J
H.SHEMA

J
JERICHO
A j =D
HAMMAT
TIBERIAS
J
GERASA
J A BETH
s h e An

AJ 0
HULDA
(nn) A 5a. Chart with Form s o f M enoroth.

EN GEDI
flinl J A
5a. Chart with Form s o f M enoroth.
246 JEW ISH ART A N D ARCH AEOLOGY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY ICO N O G R A PH Y A N D SYMBOLISM 247

NAME BASE BRANCHES GLASS

BETH
SHE'ARIM
J <
a
e s h t e m o 'a

J
,A SHKELON
J
GrvlrSI J
ASHDOD
J
mJ
5b. Chart with Form s o f M enoroth.

7. Menoroth Flanking the Ark, Beth Shecarim drawings.

 ICONOG RA PH Y A N D SYMBOLISM 249

v\ IBs
9. G ilded G old G lasses.

from the Jew ish catacombs in Rom e, two of which are now on display in the Israel
M useum (fig. 9a, b). A similar, and equally stylized, m enorah was found in the
Jew ish Q uarter in Jerusalem (fig. 1), while a yet m ore stylized bronze m enorah, the
branches of which are formed by connected globular balls, was discovered during
the excavation of the synagogue at cEn-Gedi (PI. 57) and is similar to the m enorah
depicted on the mosaic floor of the M acon synagogue (fig. 14b and PI. 87).
Schematic and highly stylized seven-branched m enoroth commonly appear in relief
sculpture (fig. 5b), for example, on capitals at C apernaum (PI. 42a) and 3Ascalon,
on a lintel from Kochav H aY arden (fig. V I I I.26), and screens from 3Ascalon (PI.37)
and Susiya (fig. 18). Similarly stylized m enoroth appear on tombstones from Yasif,
T am ara and cIblin (PI. 33), and are seen on the synagogue mosaic floors at Jericho
and cEn-Gedi (Pis. 50, 96), and engraved on a limestone slab at H . R im m on
(K loner 1983b :70).
The ensemble of m enoroth depicted in the Beth Shecarim cemetery shows most
of the variants of the shape of the branches: curved upwards, square form and
triangular (fig. 10).
c) The light fittings. Light fittings on top of the branches were occasionally m ade
of bronze or pottery lamps (fig. 5), and at other times took the form of glass con­
tainers (fig. 5). They were housed on the end of the branches and on the horizontal
bar which lay above and linked the branches of the m enorah. T he appearance of

8. Menoroth Flanking the Ark: a) Hammath Tiberias; b) Beth 3Alpha; c) N acaran.

250 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLO GY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY
10. M enoroth from Beth Shecarim .
ICO N O G R A PH Y A N D SYMBOLISM 251
these bars on portrayals of realistic lamps on mosaic floors, such as H am m ath-
Tiberias (PI. 101), Susiya, Beth She‫*־‬an A and M a con (Pis. 104, 103, 87; note the
wicks and oil in the glass vessel) suggests that they served a functional purpose, prob­
ably to hold the glass containers which served as lamps. Light was provided by an
arrangem ent of oil and wicks. Pottery or bronze lamps are portrayed in the Huseifa
mosaic (PI. 56a, b), in the gilded glass from Rom e, (fig. 9a, b) and in the D ura
Europos fresco (fig. 11; PI. 27). The m enorah to the left of the Ark in the Beth
‫*־‬Alpha mosaic is also equipped with lamps (PI. 102, fig. 8b). Depictions of the glass
containers on mosaic floors are elaborately realistic, allowing one to see the wick
inside them and leaving no doubt that they are of glass (fig. 5). Such containers are
to be seen on the m enoroth in the mosaics at H am m ath Tiberias, Beth She‫*־‬an A,
Beth ‫*־‬Alpha (the right hand m enorah), and at Huseifa (fig. 5, Pis. 56, 101-103).
Glass containers would most probably have been placed in the seven depressions
along the top of the stone m enorah from H am m ath Tiberias (PI. 54).
Second Tem ple examples of m enoroth (figs. 1-3, 12) have an additional object
depicted close to them: a table. O n the reverse side of the Antigonus coin a table
is depicted (PI. 59b) (M eshorer 1982,1 :94) and is a very schematic depiction of the
golden Table located near the M enorah in the Tem ple. Incisions on a stone from
the Jew ish Q uarter in Jerusalem depict the m enorah with the table next to it (fig.
1). The relief panel of the trium phal Arch of T itus shows the m enorah, the table and
the trum pets (PI. 53). Similar depictions of candelabra and tables in ritual functions
appear in early ancient N ear Eastern representations (see for instance Pritchard
1950: fig. 626,628).
Thus, the M enorah as well as the Table are the most im portant Tem ple vessels,
representing the sanctity of the Tem ple. In all the above-m entioned depictions they
signify the Tem ple and its spiritual connotations, but do not have the symbolic
values which became attached to them only sometime later in the m id second cen­
tury CE.
D uring the period between the destruction of the Tem ple and the Bar K okhba
Revolt, few examples of m enoroth are found. W hen m enoroth do appear, they are
found mostly in funerary art. By depicting m enoroth with m ore or less than seven
branches, or with a different form to the semicircular shape of the Tem ple m enoroth
the Jew s seem to have avoided the prohibition of direct representations (Sussman
1983: nos. 1-6: lamps depicting m enoroth dating to the second century CE). The
rendering of m enoroth on second century ossuaries (R ahm ani 1980) can be similarly
explained. T he reason for the various forms of the m enorah m ight be explained by
three passages in the Talm ud, where the rabbis prohibit the m aking of a house in
JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLO GY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY ICONOG RAPH Y A N D SYMBOLISM 253

the image of the Tem ple; the m aking of a seven branched m enorah in the image of
the Tem ple m enorah, or a table in the Tem ple T able’s image (B . Menahot 28 b;
cAboda Zara 43 a; Rosh Hashana 24 a,b).
Only from the third century onwards does the seven branched m enorah appear
as a symbol intim ating a complete disregard for this prohibition. Some examples of
three‫־‬, five- and nine-branched m enoroth have been found from this period. See for
instance fig. 13, from C apernaum and the examples from the Golan (PI. 42d,f; Ilan
1980:118-119).
In later periods, from the end of the second century onwards, the m enorah is used
in the synagogue ritual as a rem inder of its function in the Tem ple (also
Goodenough 1954:74-76). This is also attested to by the depiction of the m enorah
on mosaic floors where it represents the synagogue m enorah. T here is some proof
that a single m enorah m ay have served in some synagogues before the fourth cen­
tury. This is attested to by the two aediculae, one of which possibly housed a
m enorah, in both the synagogues of C apernaum and N abratein (see pp. 173, 175).
It is possible that from the fourth century on, two m enoroth functioned
simultaneously in the synagogue ritual, as attested to by the H am m ath Tiberias
synagogue mosaic (Pis. 101).
T hus, sometime between the third and fourth centuries, a change in the
synagogue ritual m ust have occurred which required the use of two usually uniden­
tical m enoroth which flanked the Ark, as depicted in the H am m ath Tiberias, Susiya
and Beth 3Alpha synagogue mosaic floors (fig. 8, Pis. 101, 102, 104). This change
in the mosaic floor depictions, when a pair of m enoroth began to be shown, includes
other innovations such as zodiac representations and additional ritual utensils. The
expansion of Christianity, and its inherent challenge to the established Jew ish
religion, m ay have been the cause of the increasing ceremonial content in synagogue
ritual and art.
To sum up, the chronological development of the form of the m enorah is as
follows: in the first century BCE to the first century C E the m enorah of the Second
Tem ple has semi-circular branches and a conical base (see Hachlili and M erhav
1985:259-264). The second century CE m enorah depicted on ossuaries and lamps
usually has a different num ber of branches, either m ore or less than seven. The mid-
third century m enorah shows the first com bination of a conical base with three small
round legs suggesting a tripod base (as depicted in the D ura Europos synagogue (fig.
11)). The ornate form of the fourth century H am m ath Tiberias m enoroth (fig. 8a
and PI. 54) is rendered by pom egranates as “ knob and flower” decorated branches,
glass containers as lamps, and shows the tripod base comm on from now on.
Chronologically, the horizontal bar connecting the branches begins to appear
towards the end of the third century.

13. Five-Branched M enorah, C apernaum .

 254 JEW ISH ART A ND ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY
The menorah’s significance and symbolism
Scholars differ as to the significance of the m enorah. Goodenough (1954, IV :71-
98) and M . Sm ith (1957-58:512) m aintain that the m enorah with the seven lights
represents the seven planets. The m enorah, whether in the Tem ple, the synagogue,
or on a tom b, portrays for m an a great light from God. “ The m enorah is an image
of god . . . ” “ a symbol of god and his rule . . . ” (Goodenough 1954, IV: 82). “ The
m enorah was significant for Jew ish piety in a great variety of senses but essentially
as a mystic symbol of light and life— god present and manifest in the world—
through which the Jew hopes for im m ortality” (Goodenough 1954, IV: 92).
W hatever its origins, the fact rem ains that the m enorah came to be the symbol
of the Jew ish people. M oreover, it is not completely clear whether its origins lie in
the Land of Israel or in the Diaspora. It seems probable, however, that it was in
places such as Rom e, Babylon, and in N orth Africa during the second century that
the m enorah came to symbolize the Jew ish revolt against the Rom ans and the Jew ish
need for self-identity (Avigad 1976:268). From the D iaspora, it returned to Israel,
from whence it had probably originally come, and where it had been used as a sym­
bol from the second century onwards (also R ahm ani 1980:116-117).
The m enorah became particularly prevalent as a symbol specific to the Jews
during the fourth century and afterwards and was used as a way of distinguishing
them from those who used the Christian cross. The m enorah has been found on
synagogues, public buildings, and on homes throughout the Land of Israel, leaving
no doubt as to which are Jew ish structures. In the case of the M a con synagogue
mosaic (fig. 41 and PI. 87), for example, the prom inently displayed m enorah dif­
ferentiates the synagogue from the nearby Shellal church mosaic (fig. 43), to which
it is similar.
Two most im portant issues concerning the m enorah relate to 1) the reason for and
the significance of the seven lights it sustained; and 2) the explanation for the depic­
tion of two m enoroth flanking an Ark.
1) The seven lights probably represented the seven days of the week (but see
Goodenough 1954, IV: 87): every day of the week a lam p was lighted and only on
the Sabbath, the seventh day, did the m enorah have all its seven lamps lit. The
m enorah in the Tem ple and, later, in the synagogue, was used in a daily ritual which
culm inated in the Sabbath—a seven day, seven lights ritual. Thus, the m enorah was
used as a kind of weekly calendar, a time table for the daily and weekly ritual.
2) A simple answer is to be found in the tendency for symmetrical composition
in Jew ish art, as influenced by O riental art (see p. 376f£). Depictions of two m enoroth,
however, m ay reflect the actual function of the m enorah in the early synagogue.
IC O N OG RAPH Y AND SYMBOLISM 255
Such portrayals are, in fact, very often guides to the use of actual objects, and il­
lustrate the internal arrangem ent of the synagogue, with the A rk in a central posi­
tion, flanked by m enoroth (figs. 7,8), which m ay also have been placed together with
the Ark in the niche or apse of the synagogue (see p. 198). For instance, the three built
niches of the ‫>־‬Eshtem oca synagogue probably held an Ark and two m enoroth (fig.
V I I I,5). The two m enoroth could have signified the two weeks which the 24 priestly
courses had to serve in the Tem ple (twice a year, one week at a time). M arble slab
fragm ents with inscriptions of the 24 priestly courses were found in 5Ascalon,
Kissufim and the Caesarea synagogue (see pp. 225-226).
The m enorah was an integral part of the Tem ple ritual and was the most im por­
tant of the Tem ple vessels. Its later representation served the purpose of rem inding
the Jew s of their previous glory as well as their pride in the Tem ple, and expressed
the longing and hope for the renewal of the Tem ple services and worship. F urther­
m ore, its unique and impressive design m ade it an excellent choice for a symbol to
signify the m eaning of Judaism : instantly recognizable, the m enorah symbol would
be imm ediately associated with the Jews. So the purposes that the m enorah served
were m any: as a link with ancient rites and worship, as a symbol of the Jew ish faith,
and as a visual emblem always recognizable. By this process a national symbol was
created which satisfied the Jew s’ need for self-identity, while living am ong C hris­
tians and pagans.
Conclusions
In the course of the above discussion, we have followed the developm ent of the
m enorah as artefact and as symbol beginning with the very earliest illustration of
the Second Tem ple candelabrum , which was executed during the first century BCE.
The m enorah and the table, which already appear in the Second Tem ple period on
the coins of M attathias Antigonus, on stucco in the Jew ish Q u arter and on the Arch
of T itus, were the most im portant Tem ple implem ents. They signify the Tem ple
and its most im portant ceremonial vessels.
The menorah became a prominent symbol only after the destruction of the Temple. Once the
Tem ple was destroyed, a need for a concrete visual image became strongly felt. It
is only at this stage that we begin to see the depictions of the implem ents associated
with the Tem ple taking on a symbolic significance in funerary and synagogal art.
At the same time the actual m enorah (such as the H am m ath Tiberias stone m enorah
(PI. 54) takes on a symbolic function in the synagogue, as can be seen by the place
of the m enorah in synagogal art, on mosaic floors for instance, where it is shown
flanking the Ark. In these cases the m enorah seems to represent an im portant
256 JEW ISH ART A ND ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY IC O N OG RAPH Y A N D SYMBOLISM 257

feature of the synagogue. D uring the third to sixth centuries the m enorah plays a
dual function in Jew ish art; first and m ore commonly, as a symbol of the Jew ish peo­
ple, and second, as an actual illustration of the place and function of the m enorah
in the Jew ish synagogue.

2. The Ritual Objects

T he m enorah is frequently flanked by ritual utensils usually consisting of the
shofar, lulav, ethrog and incense shovel, either severally or together (fig. 14). In
some instances another object, the hanging lam p, is shown adjacent to the m enorah.
This group of ritual emblems is commonly depicted in synagogue and funerary art.
T heir appearance in synagogal art is m ore frequent than in funerary art.

a) The Shofar— a R am ’s Horn

The form of the shofar is usually that of a horn, open and wide at one end with
a knob-like protruberance at the other end (figs. 15, 16). The shofar played a
ceremonial and ritual function in the Tem ple together with a pair of trum pets, and
was especially associated with Rosh HaShanah (New Year) and Yom Kippur (Day of
Atonem ent) (see Goodenough 1954, IV: 168, 193-194; Leon 1960: 200). The most
realistic depiction is on the H am m ath Tiberias mosaic pavem ent (fig. 14a, PI. 101),
where the shofar is depicted with lines which represent some type of decoration; a
very similar shofar is depicted on the M acon and Beth She^an mosaics (figs. 15, Pis.
87, 103). The H ulda (fig. 15 and PI. 60) and G erasa (fig. 17) shofaroth are also quite
realistic portrayals. O ther shofaroth are depicted in filled outline only in Huseifa and
T irath Zvi (Pis. 55, 56). The Beth 3Alpha shofaroth are depicted in a stylized fashion
(fig. 15, PI. 102).
Shofaroth first appear in the second-third centuries in funerary and synagogal art.
It is the emblem most frequently flanking the m enorah, and is commonly
depicted paired with the incense shovel on mosaic pavem ents (for instance, Beth
She^an, fig. 14c) or with the lulav on synagogue screens and architectural fragments
(fig. 16). (W henever the shofar appears to be rendered on its own, for example at
M acoz H ayim (PI. 95) or T irath Zvi (PI. 55), this is probably due to the fact that
the mosaic was dam aged and parts of it were lost, particularly those parts including
other emblems.).

b) The Lulav— a Palm Branch

T he form of the lulav is sometimes a simple branch, although it frequently ap­
pears as a bundle of branches, such as palm , m yrtle, and willow (fig. 15) (see for
instance, the depiction on the mosaic pavem ents of H am m ath Tiberias (PI. 101). 14. Menoroth with Ritual Objects from: a) Hammath Tiberias; b) M acon; c) Beth She‫*־‬an; d) Jericho.
 IC O N OG RAPH Y AND SYMBOLISM
258 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE A N TIQ UITY

NAME SHOFAR INCENSE SHOVEL LULAV, ETHROG

WAMMATH
‫׳‬ 3 Sfh / SHOFAR
INCENSE
SHOVEL
LULAV,
ETHROG

e /
TIBERIAS

J / E

/
BETH

0
Al p h a

f 1 □/
/

j
HUSEIFA

\
BETH
mU SUSIYA

/ «

SHEAN A’
15. R itual O bjects on M osaics: Shofar; Incense Shovel; Lulav and Ethrog.

15. R itual O bjects on M osaics: Shofar; Incense Shovel; Lulav and Ethrog.
260 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY IC O N O G R A PH Y A N D SYMBOLISM 261

INCENSE LULAV, INCENSE LULAV,

SHOFAR KELILAH NAME SHOFAR
SHOVEL ETHROG SHOVEL ETHROG

m Ao n

J As h k e l o n
/
BETH
SHEAN B’
6 ®f I
JERICHO
i ♦ ASHDOD

/
GERASA
Or i BETH
SHEARIM
c/ A
HULDA

j |lr=
15. R itual O bjects on M osaics: Shofar; Incense Shovel; Lulav and Ethrog; Kelilah.
BETH
s h e An A
J ‫־־‬# 4
16. R itual O bjects on Stone: Shofar; Incense Shovel; L ulav and Ethrog.
262 JEW ISH ART A ND ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY IC ON OG R A PH Y A ND SYMBOLISM 263
I

Table 3 a

Distribution of the Menorah and. Ritual Objects in Synagogue and Funerary Art .

D I S T R I B U T I O N C H A R T (a)

SY NAG O G A L A R T

T otal Sub M osaic Archit.

(a + b) Total P ave. Screens C apitals C olum ns Lintels Frag.

T otal
M enoroth 218 95 28 11 11 5 24 16

17. G erasa, M enorah and R itual O bjects. (1)

M enorah alone 139 51 8 4 8 3 18 10

(2)
M enorah with
c) The Ethrog— a Citrus Fruit R itual O bjects 77 44 20 7 3 2 6 6
T he ethrog is frequently depicted as a circular or ovoid object connected with or
tied to the lulav with which it was part of the bundle used in the Feast of Tabernacles D istribution o f R itual O bjects F lanking the M enorah in (2)
(Sukkoth) celebration, the most im portant of the three annual festivals during which 69 36 17 6 2 2 3 6
Shofar
Jew s m ade pilgrimage to the Tem ple in Jerusalem (see p. 18). The first ap­ Lulav 52 26 12 6 2 1 5
pearance of the lulav is as an emblem on the Jew ish W ar coins (69 CE, M eshorer Ethrog 42 19 11 1 1 1 5
Incense Shovel 25 15 11 1 1 2 -
1982, II: 117-120), although palm branches are depicted on some coins of H erod 5
Ark 9 5 - -
/ “ -

the G reat. They reappear on the Bar K okhba W ar coins (early second century CE),
and also decorate contem porary lamps (Sussm an 1982: 21). T he lulav is also
Suspended Lam p
Lions
5
2
4
2
2
2
1
-
-
-
/ 1
-
-
-
Scrolls 3 1 - - - - 1
depicted on m any Jew ish objects and on synagogue mosaic floors, and is usually
paired with the ethrog (figs. 14a, b, 15, 16). O n several screens and mosaics the lulav
is paired with the shofar, both of which flank the m enorah (figs. 14d, 16). In two
instances in Beth Shecarim the lulav is a solitary emblem (figs. 10, 15, 16) (Avigad
1976: 272-273, fig. 130: 15, 16). O n the mosaic floor of the Tiberias synagogue a the incense shovel is only used in depictions in the Land of Israel and is replaced
pair of lulav and ethrog are twice depicted flanking an inscription (PI. 61). in the D iaspora depictions by an am phora (fig. 9a, b).
Scholars differ as to the m eaning of this emblem. (Sukenik (1933: 225 and fig. on
d) The Incense Shovel 223) wrongly suggests that it was a lectern), whereas G oodenough proposes that the
The shovel is a type of rectangular fire pan with a handle. Four bronze incense shovel has eschatological implications. Braslavi (1967: 115-117) contends that the in­
shovels were found in the Bar Kokhba caves and are dated to the first-second cen­ cense shovel·was used by the H igh Priest on the Day of A tonem ent, and that the
turies (Yadin 1963: 48-53). Such incense shovels were part of the accessory utensils Jew ish artists used the shovel· as part of the symbolic repertoire of the three feasts
of the m enorah, and were used to clean the lamps of the M enorah in the Tem ple in the m onth of Tishrv. Rosh HaShanah (New Year), Yom Kippur (Day of Atonem ent)
(Ex. 25: 38). Com m only paired with the shofar (figs. 14c, 15, 16) it is the rarest of and Sukkoth (Tabernacles). Narkiss (1935) and Avi-Yonah (1964: 30) m aintain that
all the ritual objects and appears mostly on synagogue mosaic pavements as well as it is a snuff shovel used in the synagogue.
on some synagogue architectural fragm ents (see Table 3). It should be noted that
 264 JEW ISH ART A ND ARCH AEOLOGY IN LATE A N TIQ UITY IC O N OG RAPH Y A N D SYMBOLISM 265

Tabel 3 b Table 4

Distribution of The Menorah and Ritual Objects in Synagogue and Funerary Art Distribution of The Menorah and Ritual Objects in Synagogue and Funerary Art in the Land of Israel and the
Diaspora
D I S T R I B U T I O N C H A R T (b)
C O M P A R IS O N C H A R T
FUNERARY ART
Land o f Israel D iaspora
Beth
T otal Sub Tom b­ T om b Shecarim G lass A m ulets, Bronze Synagogue Funerary Synagogue Funerary
(a + b) Total stones D oors C em etry Lam ps Bottles Seals M edalions Lam ps Total Art Art T otal Art Art

T otal T otal
M enoroth 218 123 10 3 41 15 35 10 14 5 M enoroth 216 95 121 273 25 ^ 248

(1) (1)
M enorah alone 139 89 9 2 34 4 24 6 7 3 M enorah alone 139 51 88 132 15 117

(2) (2)
M enorah with M enorah with
R itual O bjects 77 44 1 1 7 11 11 4 7 2 R itual O bjects 77 44 33 141 10 131

D istribution o f R itual O bjects F lanking the M enorah in (2)

D istribution o f R itual O bjects Flanking the M en orah in (2)
Shofar 69 34 1 - 3 7 , 10 4 7 2
Shofar 69 35 34 42 8 34
Lulav 52 26 1 - 3 2 8 4 7 1
L ulav 52 26 26 83 12 71
Ethrog 42 23 - - 3 2‫־‬ 6 4 7 1
Ethrog 42 19 23 48 10 38
Incense Shovel 25 10 - - 3 7 - ‫־‬ - -
Incense Shovel 25 15 10 - -
2
Ark 9 4 - - 4 - - - - -
Flask - - - 35 35
Suspended Lam p 5 1 - 1 - - - - - -
Ark 9 5 4 19 - 19
Lions 2 - - - - - - - - -
Suspended Lam p 5 4 1 - - -
Scrolls 3 2 - - - 2 - - - -
Lions 2 2 - 2 2
Scrolls , 1 1 - 11 2 7
R itual O bjects alone 6 2 4 25 - 25

The four ritual objects flank the m enorah in m any different combinations and a r­
rangem ents (fig. 14); rarely is the m enorah flanked by a symbol other than these
(fig. 8c).
The m ajority of the depictions of these motifs appears on synagogue objects and
ornam entation, and less on funerary art. The situation in the D iaspora is the
reverse, where these motifs appear m ore frequently in funerary art. This m ay have
prom pted Goodenough (1954, IV: 147) to observe that the lulav and ethrog were
prim arily funerary emblems and appear only secondarily in synagogal art (see
Tables 3, 4).
A complete assemblage of the four ritual objects flanking the m enorah is often
portrayed on mosaic pavem ents (fig. 15a‫־‬c). O ther artefacts have only two or some­
times three of the emblems depicted on them (fig. 16). G roups of three of the
emblems (figs. 15, 16) flanking the m enorah are mostly depicted on small objects—
glass bottles, seals, lamps and medallions. These groups also occur on some architec­
tural fragm ents but only once on a synagogue pavem ent (M acon, fig. 14b). M ost
commonly depicted is a pair either of a) the shofar and incense shovel flanking the
m enorah one on each side (fig. 14c) or b) a pair of shofar and lulav flanking the
m enorah one on each side (fig. 14d). M ost of these pairs are depicted on capitals,
lintels and screens (see fig. 16), as well as on lamps and seals (PI. 62, table 3a). Pair
a) is depicted twice on the synagogue pavem ent of Beth She^an A (fig. 14c and PI.
103) and pair b) is depicted once on the Jericho synagogue pavem ent (fig. 14d and
266 JEW ISH ART A ND ARCHAEOLO G Y IN LATE ANTIQ UITY
PI. 50). Note that the pairing of lulav and ethrog is comm on on some lamps (PL
62) and at the D ura Europos synagogue (PL 27). O n the m ajority of architectural
fragm ents the m enorah is independently rendered (table 3).
Table 3 shows the frequency of the representations of the four ritual objects; a
solitary m enorah is represented 130 times on about 230 artefacts, and in about 75
instances the m enorah is depicted as flanked by the ritual utensils:
70 depictions of the shofar flanking the menorah
52 depictions of the lulav flanking the menorah
42 depictions of the ethrog flanking the menorah
30 depictions of the incense shovel
8 depictions of the hanging lamp
T he shofar is the object which most frequently flanks the m enorah, and the incense
shovel and hanging lam p are rarely rendered.
Com parison with inform ation on distribution of the ritual objects in the D iaspora
(table 4) is enlightening. A bout half of the R om an Jew ish catacomb inscriptions are
decorated with a solitary m enorah, whereas on the other half the m enorah is flanked
by the ritual objects (Leon 1949: 87-90; 1960: 195). T he order of frequency is also
different: the lulav is thé most common whereas the other three appear less fre­
quently (Leon 1960: 196, note 3).
Chronology
R itual objects flanking the m enorah appear frequently first in Jew ish cemeteries
of the D iaspora in the R om an catacombs of the second-fourth centuries CE
(Goodenough 1953, III: figs. 768, 769, 772, 773, 817, 818, 846, 847) and are dated
to the third-fourth centuries. In the Land of Israel they appear on a few objects in
the Beth Shecarim cemetery: on two m arble slabs and on lead sarcophagi (fig. 10:
2, 4, 5) (Avigad 1976: 270, fig. 130: 2, 4, 5). Avigad (1976: 268, 273) m aintains
that these objects were probably im ported from the Diaspora, and thus furnish proof
for his theory that these religious emblems were used commonly by the Diaspïora
Jew s who needed to emphasize their identity; and Jew s in the Land of Israel m ay
have used these symbols less at this tim e, probably as they felt less need to differen­
tiate themselves from the non-Jewish population.
From the fourth century on, the use of the ritual objects flanking the m enorah is
common on all kinds of objects and on synagogue pavem ents (such as H am m ath
Tiberias of the fourth century, fig. 14a). T heir representation, which in funerary art
probably indicates Jew ish identification, gains profound significance when depicted
in synagogal art, where it alludes to the Tem ple implem ents used during feasts of
IC ON OG R A PH Y AND SYMBOLISM 267
the seventh month* and to the function of the ritual objects in the same rituals in
the synagogues of the day.
Origins and Symbolism
R epresentations of ritual objects flanking the m enorah are to be explained by their
association with the Feast of Tabernacles which during the Second Tem ple period
came to be the most im portant of the three annual pilgrim age feasts (attested to
already by Zechariah, 14: 16-18). The Feast of Tabernacles was referred to as “ The
Feast” (Jos., A n t V III, 100) and ■*Asif ( = final harvest of the year);
The rituals accom panying the Feast of Tabernacles in the Tem ple (Safrai 1965 :
190-196; 1976: 894-996) were many:
1) T he rite of the four species (the lulav, ethrog, willow and m yrtle) which were
raised up and carried aloft in a procession around the Tem ple altar during the days
of the festival (Jos. Ant. Ill; 244-245). The waving of the lulav and its procession
served also during other celebrations to express the people’s joy, especially when
com m em orating the dedication of the Tem ple, victory celebrations and com m unal
rejoicing in the seventh m onth (I Kings 8:2-5, 65; II C hron. 5:3-6; 7:8-10; I Macc.
13:51; II M acc. 10:6-9; Jos. Ant. V III:100; J o h n 12:13; M . Sukkah, 4-5). After the
destruction of the Tem ple a custom was established in which the lulav was raised
and carried around the bema in the synagogue during the seven days of the Feast of
Tabernacles in m em ory of the Tem ple rite.
2) T he willow was carried aloft round the altar, and was shaken on the last day
of the feast.
3) W ater-libation ceremonies were perform ed during the festival nights in the
C ourt of W om en, by the H igh Priest or another priest, and were connected with the
supplicants’ desire for rain.
4) A celebration of rejoicing (Simchat Beth Hashoevah) was carried out during the
nights of the festival in the Tem ple courtyard. The distinctive features of this revelry
consisted of bonfires, torchfires and lights, which were employed to increase the
festivity. M en danced throughout the nights in the C ourt of the W om en with the
women looking down upon them from the galleries.
5) Once every seven years on the last day of the feast and after the sabbatical year,
chapters of the T orah (particularly from D euteronom y) were read to the com m unal
assembly of the people (Deut. 31: 10-13; M . Sotah 7:8).
6) The Hallel was sung with flute accom panim ent on all eight days of the T ab er­
nacles feast.
268 JEW ISH ART AND ARCH AEOLOGY IN LATE A N TIQ UITY IC O N OG RAPH Y A ND SYMBOLISM 269

It is also suggested (M eshorer 1982, 11:117-118) that Tabernacles was the only
practical tim e that the Jew ish farm ing population was able to em bark upon the
pilgrimage to Jerusalem , and thus it also developed into a celebration of the final
harvest of the year. The Tabernacles was further distinguished by additional
sacrifices offered on several days of the feast.
A most im portant elem ent distinguishing this feast from others m ust be stressed:
all the rites and ceremonies performed during Tabernacles at the Tem ple involved
the participation of all the people who came to the Jerusalem Tem ple. They p ar­
ticipated in the offerings, processions and dancing. By comparison, Passover was a
m ore family-oriented feast, and Pentecost, which was only a one-day feast, entailed
no popular participation in its rites (Safrai 1965: 181-190).

e) The Hanging (Suspended) Lamp

O ne other ritual utensil was employed in the synagogue ceremony as can be seen
from depictions on mosaic pavem ents, on objects found in synagogue excavations,
and in funerary art: the hanging chandelier or suspended lam p, all of which, with
the exception of those at Beth Shecarim , are dated to the sixth century. It took two
forms: either (a) a single glass lam p (Kos) in the form of a cup with a high or pointed
base, hanging from a single or triple chain (figs. 18, 19; also Zevulun and Olenik
1978: 80, no. 211); or (b) a polycandelon, a bronze ring with openings for lamps,
suspended by chains (figs. 19, 20; N abratein). This was known as the Kelilah
(R ahm ani 1960: 16, note 20; Naveh 1978: 34-36, no. 16). '
M ost of these objects and their variations are found in synagogues or on ornam en­
tal depictions. For instance, several chains, polycandelons and glass lamps have
been found in synagogue excavations. Inside the apse of the M a con synagogue re­
m ains were found of parts of a bronze polycandelon with circlets (holes) for the oil
lamps, iron hooks, chain and fittings and parts of two cone-shaped glass lamps
(R ahm ani 1960: 16, fig. 9: 3, 4; PI. 11:2, 3, 9). In the Beth SheDan synagogue a
bronze polycandelon was found (Zori 1967: 163, PI. 33: 7), as well as some glass
cups probably belonging to it (ibid., PI. 33:5, fig. 11:1-3). In the Rehov synagogue
bronze chains and glass fragments from a polycandelon were found on the floor
(Vitto 1980: 217; 1981: 92-93). In the Jericho synagogue a bronze hanger of a glass
lam p was found (Baramki 1936: 75, PI. 22). At the R im m on synagogue, parts of
bronze rings and chains for a polycandelon were found in debris west of the
synagogue (K loner 1983b: 67-68). A complete bronze polycandelon was found at
Kefar M acher (now in the M usée M ariem ont, Belgium) and has twelve openings
for lamps and three chains for suspension (fig. 20). An A ram aic inscription is incised
18. Menoroth with Hanging Lamps.
on the ring: “ This Kelilah ( = polycandelon).. .for the sacred place at K efar
270 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLO GY IN LATE A N TIQ UITY
19. H an gin g Lam ps on T orah Shrine.
20. P olycandelon.
IC O N OG RAPH Y AN D SYMBOLISM 271
H an an iy a” (Naveh 1978: 34-36, no. 16, and m ore examples in Zevulun and Olenik
1978: 80-82). (Similar polycandela were found in sites other than synagogues: Beth
She^an m onastery (Fitzgerald 1939, III: PI. 37:3), Jericho (Barcamki 1935: 82, PI.
LIII: 2a, b), and Sardis (Foss 1976: fig. 21c).) In the Jerusalem Tem ple M ount ex­
cavations a bronze chandelier of the Byzantine period was found (M azar 1975a: 37).
T he excavations at the N abratein synagogue yielded a carved stone lintel of the
T orah shrine with a vertical slit in the m oulding above the conch (fig. V III. 18, PI.
24). M eyers et al. propose (1981a: 239) that from this hole a lam p was suspended
in front of the Ark doors.
Depictions of Hanging Lamps
The Lamp on the Torah Shrine (fig. 19)
M ost depictions render the hanging glass lam p (Kos) form (a). The depictions on
the mosaic pavements of the synagogues of Beth DAlpha and Beth She^an, and the
draw ing from Beth Shecarim show the glass lam p suspended from the centre of the
gable of the T orah shrine. A similar rendition appears on a draw ing on plaster from
the Rehov synagogue (unpublished). The ceramic bowl (dated to the Byzantine
period) found in a house at N abratein is the only depiction of a polycandelon of form
(b) showing a chain suspended from the inner gable and holding a ring, depicted
on its side, which probably held glass lamps (M eyers and M eyers 1982: 182 and fig.
3). A lam p suspended from an arch is depicted on a glass plate from Beth Shecarim
(Avigad 1976: 211 and fig. 100). Similar lamps suspended from building entrances
are depicted on a church mosaic floor at G erasa (Zevulun and Olenik 1978: no. 220)
and at the church of S. M aria M aggiore in Rom e (Goodenough 1954, IV: fig. 93).
Lamps Hanging from a Menorah (fig. 18)
Several lamps are depicted hanging from a m enorah. O n the upper panel of the
Na^aran synagogue mosaic pavem ent, two glass lamps are shown suspended on a
triple chain hanging down from each of the two m enoroth. A nother lam p is depicted
hanging on one side of the m enorah in the central m edallion of the small synagogue
mosaic at Beth She‫*־‬an B. O n a stone screen relief from the Susiya synagogue two
lamps are carved suspended from the bar of the m enorah between the upper b ran L
ches. A similar depiction of lamps hanging from a bar is possibly rendered on a lintel
from H . K ishor (Kloner 1974: p. 199, note 14, PI. 39A). Two similar lam ps are
carved on the Kefar Yasif tom b door, on either side of a m enorah (fig. 18 and PI.
33).
These suspended lamps, whether single light hangings or o f t h e Kelilah type, were
probably synagogue fixtures, used to light the synagogue during the Late A ntiquity
272 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY
period. Few sources rem ain to explain their use. A later source relates “ A custom
of ours, the light of the synagogue held in an cashashit with oil floating on the water,
and (the light) burning and the oil wasting till it reaches the water and (the light)
goes o u t” ( Tsuvot Gaonim, Shar, Tshuva 23a; Zevulun and Olenik 1978: 42). Depic­
tions of hanging lamps in representational art seem to suggest to scholars an addi­
tional m eaning: Goodenough (1954, IV: 130) asserts that the hanging lam p was
“ the perpetual light (.Ner HaTamid) burned before the T orah shrine, as a m em ory
of the function of the same light before the A rk .” M eyers, Strange and M eyers
(1982: 182) suggest that the hanging Kelilah “ represents the prototype of the hanging
Eternal Light in Jew ish synagogues.” However, as hanging lamps are shown as
suspended not only from T orah shrines, but also from m enoroth, the identification
of these lamps with the Eternal Light of the Tabernacle becomes suspect.
In conclusion, the hanging lam p is part of the repertoire of ritual objects depicted
in connection with either the Ark or the m enorah, signifying its use in the synagogue
ceremony.
3) The Ark of the Scrolls
T he Ark was a chest which housed the T orah ( = the Scrolls, the Scriptures), and
stood inside the T orah shrine (aedicula, niche or apse). Several inscriptions which
m ention the ii:>aron” (= Ark) presum ably refer to the Ark of the Scrolls:
1) An A ram aic inscription on the facade of the niche at the D ura Europos
synagogue m entions the “ repository of the A rk” (K raeling 1956: 269), in reference
to the niche which housed the Ark.
2) An inscription from the H . cA m m udim synagogue refers to “ Yoezer the hazan
and Simeon his brother m ade this Ark (?) of the Lord of H eaven” (Naveh 1978:
41-42; cf. Avigad, 1960b: 62-63, who reads “ Gate of the L ord” instead of “ A rk” ).
3) A basalt stone in secondary use in the mosque at N aveh (H auran, Syria) bears
an inscription probably m entioning “ repository of the A rk .” Naveh (1978: 64-65)
questions the validity of this reading.
The term used for the Ark in the M ishnah is tevah ( Tacanit 1.1 ;2.1; Meg. 3.1; Meg.
4.21). It presum ably denotes a chest [portable—ΚΙΒΩΤΟΣ in Greek] (See also
Sukenik 1934: 52-53; W endel 1950: 20-24; Goodenough 1954, IV: 115-120).
Scholars suggest that in the early Galilean synagogues no perm anent place for the
T orah shrine existed, and the congregation used a portable chest (Sukenik 1934: 52;
Avi‫־‬Yonah 1961a: 172) as depicted on a Bar K okhba coin (fig. I,7C ) and the C aper­
naum frieze (fig. V III,56) (which portrays an Ark on wheels). However, recent ex­
cavations of Galilean synagogues dem onstrate that aediculae already existed as early
as the second century (see p. 173).
IC O N O G R A PH Y A ND SYMBOLISM 273
The form of the Ark and its place can be deduced by: a) Traces of the Ark, which
are seldom found, and b) The Ark as depicted on art objects with or without the
T orah shrine.
a) Traces found of the Ark:
Only a few pieces of surviving evidence point to the existence of wooden chests
in synagogues as, obviously, wood is seldom preserved due to climatological condi­
tions. T he finds consist m ainly of iron or bronze nails, and bone inlays or plaster
impressions, which suggest furniture (also M aoz 1972: 27). In the M acon synagogue
(R ahm ani 1960: 14), a bronze nail was found which R ahm ani suggests was part of
a catch to the cornice of the Ark. Also found were bone inlays which m ay have
decorated an Ark (idem., Pis. 3-7). In the Beth SheDan synagogue (Zori 1967: 164),
seventy nails (45 iron nails) were found in the m ain hall close to the apse, as well
as a plaster fragm ent (m easuring 1.0 m. x 0.23 m .) in the middle of the apse, close
to the back wall. These suggest wooden furniture, that is, an Ark. Excavated sec­
tions of the earlier cEn-Gedi synagogue (probably third-fourth centuries) show traces
of a wooden Ark (Barag et al. 1981: 118-119).
b) Renditions of the Ark in Jewish Art
T he Ark of the Scrolls is rendered either inside the T orah shrine facade or is
shown independently, usually with a symbolic conch referring to the absent T orah
shrine within which the Ark stood (Hachlili 1976; see p. 280ff. for the conch, and
Hachlili 1980b: 59-60). T he form of the Ark consists of a double door decorated by a
geometric ornam entation of several rectangles. M ost of the Arks depicted bear from
two to four legs (fig. 21), and are surm ounted by a gable or round top. All the Ark
representations in the Land of Israel, except one on a Beth Shecarim draw ing (figs.
23, V III.30), portray the Ark with its doors closed, and the internal shelves or scrolls
not exposed to view, this in direct contrast to the Ark renditions in the D iaspora
which show the scrolls on shelves inside an open-door Ark (fig. 9a, b). Taking into
consideration, therefore, all finds and artistic renditions of the Ark, it can be conjec­
tured to have been m ade of wood. The stone fragm ents found at synagogue sites are
parts of the aedicula or niche, which was the location of the wooden Ark of the
Scrolls (see p. 184ff.).
There are four types of Ark representations:
1) The gable top, usually depicted as a free standing chest with a double or­
nam ented door and legs: on the Ark on the C apernaum synagogue lintel, on the
N acana bronze plate, on the Beth 5Alpha mosaic floor, and on the N acaran mosaic
floor (fig. 21).
 JEW ISH ART A ND ARCH AEOLOGY IN LATE A N TIQ UITY IC O N OG RAPH Y AND SYMBOLISM 275

2) The round top, a chest with legs and an arched top sometimes decorated with
a conch. These Arks are depicted in very stylized fashion: on the Beth Shecarim
draw ing and relief (figs. 22), on a limestone m irror fram e from Shikmona, on a
stone plaque, on a lam p, and on the Jericho mosaic floor (figs. 21-22, PI. 63). This
round-top type of Ark probably suited the niche or apse, as it would fit in a round
topped structure.
3) T he box form, with ornam ented double doors, and lacking both top and legs
(fig. 23). These depictions show the Ark inside the T orah shrine (not free standing).
These Arks are portrayed on the H am m ath Tiberias and Susiya mosaic floors (Pis.
101, 104), on the Beth Shecarim incisions and drawings, on the Pekiin relief and on
an unpublished screen from Susiya (fig. 23).
4) A stylized geometric form. In two cases the Ark is depicted inside a T orah
shrine in the highly stylized form of a lozenge pattern. This is found on the Kefar ,
NAeANA
Yasif stone tomb door (PI. 33) and on a clay lam p (fig. V III.30). /
T he Beth She^an A mosaic portrays a parochet (veil) (fig. 22 and PI. 103), which
m ay indicate an Ark behind it, or only shelves which m ay have held the scrolls. (See
also Zori (1967: 152, 164), referring to fragm ents of an Ark.)
T he free standing Ark is represented by types 1 and 2 (figs. 21, 23) which have
gabled and arched top and legs, whereas the other types are usually depicted inside
the facade of the T orah shrine. Several scholars suggest a chronological development
for these Arks. W endel (1950: 16) sees the Ark of the N acana plate as the earliest,
dated to the first century; however this date is questionable. B arcamki (1936: 73,
note 4) suggests a typological sequence from the earlier round topped chest to the
later gable topped one. Galling (1956: 171) rightly refutes this and concludes that
CAPERNAUM there is no proof for any preference for one type over another as both these types
are rendered in every period.
D ue to recent synagogue excavations as well as historical research, knowledge and
evidence are now m uch m ore extensive than before; it seems reasonable to infer,
therefore, that an Ark of the Scrolls in the shape of a wooden chest stood inside the
architectural structure of the T orah shrine in the synagogue building.
R epresentations of the Ark in Jew ish art confirm the fact that a wooden Ark of
the Scrolls stood inside the T orah shrine in all its forms (aedicula, niche and apse)
in the synagogues of Late A ntiquity (fig. 24). Nevertheless the Ark was also part of
the symbolic repertoire of Jew ish art: it represented m uch deeper connotations,
being an integral part of the focal point of Jew ish worship, the Torah, and symboliz­
ing also the place of the Scriptures and their study and prayer in the destroyed T em ­
ple. Renditions of the Ark are also encountered on tom b walls and doors, and on
JERICHO BETH ALPHA
lamps not found in a synagogue context. O n mosaic floors the T orah shrine is com-
21. Depictions o f Independent Arks.
276 JEW ISH ART A N D ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE A N TIQ UITY
ICO N O G R A PH Y A ND SYMBOLISM 277

TIBERIAS

AO 0
V.%*
0 0v
oVoJ
irmi
BETH SHEARIM

23. D epiction s o f T orah Shrines. 24a. R econstructions o f the Ark housed in the T orah shrine: a) a general
exam ple.

11
1I ‫׳‬- -
BETH SHEARIM
SUSIYA
PEKI1N

PAHMA

o n of,
1 o II
°
□ 1 O I1
IJ

22. D epictions o f Arks H ou sed in T orah Shrines.

24b. R econstructions o f the Ark housed in the T orah shrines, b) reconstruction w ith the cEn Sam sam
aedicula stone.
278 JEW ISH ART AND ARCH AEOLOGY IN LATE A N TIQ UITY
24c. R econstructions o f the Ark housed in the T orah shfines. c) reconstruction w ith the U m m el-
K anatir aedicula capital.
monly depicted with the two m enoroth flanking it; this m ay very probably represent
the actual position of the T orah shrine and m enoroth in their prom inent place in
the synagogue building.
Depictions of the T orah shrine and Ark (fig. 24) had symbolic connotations which
were twofold: first, as spiritual and religious symbols of the T orah and the Scrip­
tures. Public T orah reading was a most im portant elem ent in the life of the
synagogue and its ceremonies (see pp. 138-139). Second, they symbolize the actual
place of the T orah shrine and the Ark. T heir representation in Jew ish art (especially
on the mosaic pavem ent of the synagogue) is a rendition of the actual design and
position of the T orah shrine in synagogue architecture. T he T orah shrine and Ark
are represented on various objects in order to symbolize the T orah and its spiritual
associations for the com m unity as well as suggesting its actual location in the
synagogue. It was a unique Jew ish symbol, recognizable wherever encountered.
IC O N OG RAPH Y A N D SYMBOLISM 279
The Synagogue Ark of Scrolls and the Ark of the Covenant
A confusion has arisen due to inaccuracies of definition of the synagogue Ark and
has led to its doubtful identification with the Ark of the Covenant, which had stood
in Solom on’s Tem ple in Jerusalem (Goodenough 1954, IV: 115-116, 130; M eyers
et al. 1981a: 241-242). The Ark of the C ovenant was a chest which contained the
Tablets of the Law (I Kings 8, 9; II Chronicles 11:5, 10), and which disappeared from
the Tem ple, probably in the time of K ing M anasseh (see Har&n 1959: 31-32; 1963:
58), never again to reappear. No Ark stood in the Second Temple (Avi-Yonah 1968: 330;
but see G utm an 1971a: 28-29 who suggests that “ the Ark described for the T ab er­
nacle in Exodus was in all likelihood an Ark which m ust actually have stood in the
Second T em ple” ). T orah reading, begun already in the tim e of cEzra, was institu­
tionalized, however, later with the development of the synagogue buildings. A per­
m anent place for the sacred scrolls had, therefore, to be provided. The Ark of the
synagogue was the answer and was an entirely different entity to the Ark of the
Covenant (also G utm ann 1971a: 22): it was a chest containing the T orah scrolls and
was the most prom inent feature in the synagogue. Scrolls were continually taken out
of the Ark and read in the synagogue all year round.
Some scholars (Goodenough 1954, IV: 115-116, 130; arid M eyers et al. 1981a:
241-242) m aintain that the synagogue Ark became the successor to the Ark of the
C ovenant both in form and symbol. However, there was no continuation either in
purpose or in form. The Ark of the Covenant contained a holy article not m eant to
be observed or used, whereas the synagogue Ark contained the Scriptures m eant to
be often taken out and read in public in the synagogue; it was thus an everyday
necessity of com m unity life. No continuation of form can be predicated between the
two Arks, especially as the Ark of the C ovenant’s design is known solely by the
Biblical literary description. (The only depiction of the Ark of the Covenant is the
m uch later painting in the D ura Europos synagogue of the third century.)
The Symbolic Meaning of the Depictions of Torah Shrine and Ark
T he T orah shrine had a generally accepted design with recurring elements: an
elevated structure and a facade of from two to four columns crowned with an a r­
cuated lintel, with or without a gable, frequently approached by steps (fig. V III.30).
T he Ark of the Scrolls is commonly rendered inside this facade, and occasionally the
A rk is depicted as free standing, thus representing the T orah shrine itself (figs. 21‫־‬
23). It is reasonable to infer that it also symbolized the T orah, the spiritual backbone
of Judaism , as well as representing the actual form and place of the T orah shrine
in the synagogue structure (attested to also by the architectural fragm ents of the
280 JEW ISH ART A ND ARCH AEOLOGY IN LATE A N TIQ UITY
T orah shrine found in various synagogues (p. 184)). The T orah shrine is similar to
other sacred niches and aediculae in the pagan H ellenistic-Rom an world (Hachlili
1980b: 57-58). In all likelihood the T orah shrine facade resembled the Jerusalem
Tem ple facade. M eyers and M eyers (1981: 34; also Goodenough 1954, IV: 140‫־‬
143) contend that the synagogue T orah shrine with its gable-roof and columns
represents “ a symbolic m erger of Tem ple and Holy of H olies... ” but this seems far­
fetched and cannot be proved.
Altogether, these assum ed associations with the Jerusalem Tem ple are difficult to
prove, as no depiction of the Tem ple facade has ever been found. Attem pts to
reconstruct the Tem ple facade are m ainly based on later objects from the second
century onwards, such as the Bar K okhba tetradrachm e coin, the fresco image above
the D ura Europos synagogue niche (fig. I, 7),and on later synagogue T orah shrine
images (see also Avi-Yonah 1968; Ben-Dov 1982: fig. on p. 98 for reconstructions
of the Tem ple facade).
4) The Conch
T he conch m otif (Hachlili 1980b) was employed in Jew ish funerary and synagogal
art. Long occupying an im portant place in the art of the N ear East, the conch m otif
was already popular in Egypt during the first m illennium BCE in the form of an ac­
tual shell which appears to have been worn as an am ulet. G reat T ridacna shells
thought to be of Assyrian origin have been found at m any sites, covered with incised
floral and anim al motifs in a Phoenician style. In the period from the fifth century
BCE until late R om an times, the conch often appears in G raeco-R om an art, por­
trayed naturalistically, and is associated with the m yth of Aphrodite, who emerged
from a shell (Bratschova 1938:8-14; Goodenough 1958, V III:95-106). A more
stylized version of the conch became a m otif in C hristian and pagan funerary art.
Goodenough declares (1958, V III: 150 fig. 75-77) that it represented “ a coming into
new life.” T he conch appears in Jew ish art in the form of a stylized scallop with rays
extending from the hinge at the base, in the m anner of the eastern version of the
conch (Hachlili 1980b: note 6).
The conch in synagogal and funerary art can be classified into three groups, ac­
cording to significance and context: in the first it appears as a stylized ornam entation
together with other geometric or floral motifs (figs. 25, V III.49b). The conch is occa­
sionally placed within a wreath, is occasionally found alone, and is sometimes one
of a row of decorative motifs in a m eander (see figs. 25, V I I I.54). It may also occupy
the central roundel of a clay lam p. O ther examples appear w reathed in leaves joined
by a Hercules knot (fig. X .20; V III.52b). It m ay also occur inside a wreath of acan-
IC O N OG RAPH Y A N D SYMBOLISM 281
25. C onch in W reath and in A canthus Leaves.
thus leaves (fig. 25). Such representations of the conch serve purely ornam ental
puposes and most probably had no special significance (but see Goodenough 1958,
V III :95).
In the second group of representations the conch is stylized, and appears as an
architectural element used to decorate a semicircular space, usually the upper part
of a niche or an aedicula (figs. V III.29,30). It first appears as such in Jew ish funerary
art in the first century on an ossuary bearing an incised design of a conch over a
central fluted column (fig. 26). A conch also decorates the upper part of the central
entrance of a first century tom b in Jerusalem (fig. 27). L ater examples come from
the Beth Shecarim cemetery, where conches decorate aediculae on two sarcophagi
(fig. 28). From the third century onward, stylized conches occur in several of the
Galilean synagogues, as window lintel decorations (fig. 29), or in the upper parts
of the aediculae (fig. V III.29, 30). The earliest example of a conch in a synagogue
niche comes from the D ura Europos synagogue, where it appears painted
naturalistically inside the semi-dome (PI. 27).
T he conch’s use as an architectural element is not unique to Jew ish architecture,
for it commonly appears in N abataean, Syrian and Phoenician temple niches usually
occupied by a statue of a deity (Bratschkova 1938: nos. 102-124;127-132;134-
135; 139149; 147‫ ;־‬also Hachlili 1980b: note 19,p. 57).
From the second century onwards, a decorative and non-symbolic, naturalistic
representation of the conch appears in the semi-domes of niches and aediculae. Its
first appearances in architecture are almost certainly due to its suitability for filling
a semicircular space.
282 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEO LOG Y IN LATE A N TIQ UITY IC O N OG RAPH Y A N D SYMBOLISM 283

W hen, through constant application, the conch had become an inevitable niche was already inseparable from the niche or aedicula, and had acquired religious con­
decoration, it seems to have also become conceptually associated with the niche and notations. It thus became a specifically religious m otif associated with the sacred
its inhabitant, the statue of the deity, themselves. By the second century the conch niche.
284 JEW ISH ART A ND ARCHAEOLO GY IN LATE ANT IQ U ITY
The third group consists of conch designs which appear only in Jew ish art from
the fourth to the sixth century (figs.V III.29, 3 0 ;IX .21-23). These depictions, found
on reliefs and mosaic pavem ents, are conches shown decorating the represented
T orah shrine and form ing a part of the facade with two‫ ׳‬or four columns supporting
a Syrian gable. The Ark appears within the T orah shrine as a facade with two doors
(see p. 273). In some depictions, the conch decorates an unoccupied T orah shrine (fig.
V III.29). Such designs have been found carved on a wall of the Beth Shecarim
necropolis (PI. 31), on a tom b door (PI. 33), and on a lam p. The most elaborate
depictions of the conch decorating the T orah shrine containing the Ark are to be
found in the synagogue mosaic pavem ents of H am m ath Tiberias, Susiya and Beth
SheDan A (Pis. 101, 103, 104). The m otif also appears carved on an architectural
element which m ay have belonged originally to a synagogue (fig. 30). The conch ap­
pears in two synagogue mosaic pavements of Beth 3Alpha (fig. 21 and PI. 102),
where a stylized version is shown within the gable of the Ark, and in another at
Jericho (fig. 21 and PI. 63), where, in the central panel of the pavem ent, a geometric
pattern surrounds a stylized Ark surm ounted by a conch. The Ark and conch are
depicted in a stylized m anner on a stone plaque (PI. 34).
The examples of the third group seem to indicate that the conch had by now
become an integral part of the T orah shrine and Ark. W henever the conch is shown
with the Ark only and without the T orah shrine, as in the last three examples, it can
be assumed that it was itself seen as a symbolic portrayal of the T orah shrine
(aedicula or niche or apse). If this is so, it would explain the occasional appearance
of the conch above the m enorah, as on a stone fragm ent from C apernaum (fig. 13),
and on a lam p from a tom b in Gezer (Goodenough 1953, III: fig. 268: 4). T he conch
would here symbolize the niche in which the m enorah stood.
To sum m arize, in Jew ish funerary and synagogal art the conch appears initially
as a decorative and non-sym bolic motif, in order to provide an architectural element
in the semi-domes of aediculae and niches. This use can also be observed in pagan
temples. The conch is widely employed as an architectural decoration during Late
A ntiquity, in N abatean, Syrian and Phoenician architecture, usually lining the
semi-circular space at the top of large niches. However, the conch seems to have
later become something m ore than a m ere decorative m otif in Jew ish art. It came
to symbolize the synagogal T orah shrine itself, and to have acquired a sacredness
of its own. T he sacred connotation of the niche or aedicula to Jew and non-Jew alike
later attached itself to the conch as being the traditional niche decoration to^ such an
extent that Jews seem to have regarded it as a religious motif. W hen represented
together with depictions of the T orah shrine, Ark or m enorah, it was regarded as
a symbol of the aedicula, niche, or apse itself. There can be no doubt that the conch
IC O N OG RAPH Y AND SYMBOLISM 285
developed the characteristics of a religious symbol in Jew ish art, and came to repre­
sent the sacred T orah shrine which held the holy Ark.
Conclusions
Following the destruction of the Tem ple, the T orah shrine, like the m enorah,
developed into one of the most im portant Jew ish symbols (see p. 166). Like the
m enorah, it satisfied the desires of the Jew ish people for a symbol which would, by
rem inding them of the past, represent both their spiritual and n a tio n a l aspirations.
Furtherm ore, they were chosen as symbols by the Jew ish people at a time of conflict
with the num erically and powerfully growing C hristian com m unity. T he T orah
shrine, m enorah, and ritual objects came to be associated with Judaism and to be
recognized as Jew ish symbols. This com bination of m enorah and ritual objects
developed as a unified design of Jew ish symbols during the third century.
The rites of the Feast of Tabernacles, described above, enable^us to explain the
origins of the representation of these Jew ish symbols, which flank the m enorah in
post-Tem ple art. The lulav and ethrog came to symbolize this most im portant an ­
nual feast, thereby serving as a rem inder of the Tem ple rites. The representation
of the four species also acted as a m eans of recollecting and celebrating national,
com m unal and agricultural rejoicings which had been p art of the significance of the
Feast of Tabernacles. The am phora, depicted mostly on D iaspora objects (fig. 9a,b),
replaced the shovel and represented the water libation ceremony. Finally, the ritual
objects flanking the m enorah together represented the lights and fires used during
the nocturnal celebrations of rejoicing at the time of the Tabernacles Feast. The
T orah shrine itself, as it appears in post-Tem ple art, is m eant to be an evocation
of this rite of the Tabernacles, and a com m em oration of the seven year cycle of
reading the T orah. Thus, depictions of a m enorah flanked by ritual objects, or of
the m ore elaborate T orah shrine flanked by m enoroth and ritual objects, came to
symbolize participation in the annual pilgrimages, the Feast of the Tabernacles (the
most im portant annual festival), and, by association, the Tem ple and its eventual
rebuilding.
B) F ig u r a t iv e A rt
The art of the Second Tem ple was aniconic. Hellenistic influences are shown in
the adopted decorative and architectural motifs, but no figurative designs are
depicted in this period. However, Jew ish figurative art is an extensive and
essential part of Jew ish art in Late Antiquity. A m ajor change occurred at the end
286 JEW ISH ART A ND ARCH AEOLOGY IN LATE A N TIQ UITY
of the second century and particularly during the third century when representa­
tional art began to flourish. It was at this tim e that the barriers within which Judaism
protected itself against foreign influences were being shattered. D uring this period
the Jews acquired some of the customs and decorative elements of surrounding
cultures and began to develop their own figurative and representational art, using
pagan motifs, figures and anim als, for both synagogal and funerary art.
Conflicting opinions and heated argum ents have existed in the past century about
the phenom enon of representational art, due to the prohibition of the second of the
T en C om m andm ents:
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is
in the heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the
earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them (Exod. 20: 4, 5; Deut.
5: 8, 9).
D espite this prohibition figurative art developed and was cultivated from the end of
the second and the start of the third century onwards am ong the Jew ish communities
in the Land of Israel and in the Diaspora.
Figurative art became possible for several reasons:
a) First of all, the attitude of the rabbis changed to one of greater tolerance. Such
changes, reflected in Talm udic literature, were the result of political, economic and
social circumstances (U rbach 1959).
b) The influence of the surrounding cultures, from which certain pagan and
mythological motifs were taken, became m uch stronger.
c) Jew ish literature, legends and M idrashim influenced artistic traditions.
T he theory accepted by most scholars (except Goodenough, see p. 235) is that the
pagan motifs used in Jew ish representational art became void of their original sym­
bolic (idolatrous) significance (Avi-Yonah 1973: 126), and evolved into merely or­
nam ental motifs (Avigad 1976: 282, 285). However, certain selected mythological
and symbolic motifs were acquired by the Jew s because of the influence of Jew ish
legends and M idrashic literature (Breslavi 1968). Avigad (1976: 284) m aintains that
some of the pagan themes “ are simply graphic representations of values which were
openly accepted by the Judaism of that p e rio d ...” Several motifs acquired vague
symbolic significance in Jew ish art, such as the lion or the Nikae (pp. 328, 340). The
vast m ajority, however, of the appropriated pagan motifs were ornam ental designs
copied from pattern books (p. 391).
Judaism had no tradition of figurative art. The Jew s were influenced by
Hellenistic figurative art and used contem porary pattern books, as well as creating
their own pattern books (see p. 393ff.). The Jew ish attitude towards art was basically
IC O N OG RAPH Y A N D SYMBOLISM 287
decorative, in order to add beauty and ornam entation to their buildings. Even
mythological scenes found their way into Jew ish buildings (such as the House of
Leontis, fig. 37, Pis. 68-70), as did m any other pagan motifs in the funerary art of
Beth Shecarim and synagogal architectural decoration and pavem ents. At the time j
the rabbis emphasized the latter part of the sentence “ T hou shalt not worship
th em ,” the prohibition concerning the worship of idols. T he Jew s of this period were
indeed unafraid of idolatry (U rbach 1959: 204). M oreover, in Jew ish art no law
forbids the depiction of religious subjects; on the contrary, they were allowed.
Judaism was indifferent to pictures and did not ascribe to them any sanctity, and
therefore there was no reason to prevent the depiction of representations on
pavem ents which were trodden upon. Furtherm ore, walking upon pavem ents with
such depictions insured that no sanctity or sacred quality which would cause their
worship could be attached to the scenes. Such a depiction could not be related to as
a “ graven im age” prohibited by the law. This m ight have been the reason-why even
pagan elements such as the zodiac were used. Judaism attached m uch m ore im por­
tance to the written word, as may be deduced from the iconoclastic destruction of
the N acaran synagogue pavem ent, in which the letters, however, were preserved,
and from the synagogues at Rehov and cEn-Gedi, where the floors paved with long
inscriptions were left untouched.
T he Jew ish figurative repertoire included themes such as Biblical narrative
scenes, mythological designs, motifs of animals and hum an figures which occurred
also in Jew ish poetry.
T he significance of the symbolic and iconographic themes was in contrast to the
aniconic C hristian art, and was a means of emphasizing the difference between the
Jew ish and C hristian arts (see p. 370f.).
1) Biblical Scenes
Biblical themes on synagogue mosaics were selected from a relatively few Biblical
stories: the Sacrifice of Isaac (Akedah), N oah’s Ark, Daniel in the lion’s den, the
Twelve Tribes and K ing David. Noteworthy is the recurrence of Biblical scenes in
more than one synagogue mosaic pavem ent in the Land of Israel and on mosaics
and frescoes in the Diaspora: the offering of Isaac—at Beth 3Alpha and D ura
Europos; N oah’s A rk—at G erasa and M isis-M opsuestia in Cilicia; Daniel in the
lions’ den—at N acaran and Susiya; David = O rpheus— at G aza and D ura Europos
and David and G oliath’s weapons at M arous. They were depicted in simple n a r­
ratives, although some of the scenes as a whole m ay have had symbolic meanings
(but see K raeling 1979: 363 and 385, who proposes that the Biblical scenes on the
288 JEW ISH ART A N D ARCHAEOLO GY IN LATE ANT IQ U ITY IC ON OG R A PH Y A ND SYMBOLISM 289

mosaic floors belong to a symbolic tradition of ancient Jew ish art). T he scenes had
in comm on the illustration of the theme of salvation (Schapiro 1960: 11; Avigad
1969: 68) and were associated with prayers offered in tim e of drought (Avi-Yonah
1975: 53). All three subjects were part of prayers such as “ R em em ber” and “ H e
that answ ereth...” (Sukenik 1932: 56 and note 4 ; but see Goodenough I: 253 who
suggests symbolic m eaning connected with Eastern m ystery religions). T he choice
of themes derived from the religio-cultural climate of the period and was m eant to
be a rem inder of and reference to traditional historical events (Avigad 1968: 68);
there was no intention of using these themes for symbolic or didactic purposes, as
suggested by some scholars (Goodenough 1953, I: 253 ff.). T he style, form and a r­
tistic depiction on each of these floors is completely different, and each scene m ay
be traced back to a distinct influence or source. N oah’s Ark, for example, (Gerasa)
is a realistic scene, derived from lists of animals in pattern books (see p. 392). M any
anim al renditions occur in other synagogues as a central them e—M acon, N acaran,
Gaza, see p. 31 Off.; Goodenough connects beasts and their victims to the Dionysus 31. Sacrifice o f Isaac, Beth A lpha.
and M ithra cults.
The Sacrifice of Isaac (Akedah) in the Beth 5Alpha synagogue is an example of
local, popular art, which at the same tim e m ay contain iconographical influences Inscriptions have been worked into the scene, for instance the names “ A braham ”
from Alexandria (Sukenik 1932: 42). Daniel at N acaran is very similar to the same and “ Isaac” appear above the figures. In the centre parts of Biblical legends are in­
scene appearing in C hristian iconography. David in G aza exhibits Hellenistic and scribed: “ T hou shalt not stretch forth” occurs under the H and of God, while “ And
Byzantine influences in its depiction and iconography. (See C hapter X III, pp. behold a ra m ” accompanies the ram . A row of stylized palm trees is shown above
373-374, for a comparative treatm ent of Biblical scenes in Jew ish and C hristian art.) the scene (Goodenough 1953, I: 246-247, contends that they symbolize sky).
T he depiction of the scene is stylized and naive. All the figures are rendered in
a frontal posture, whereas the animals are in profile. All are connected only by the
The Sacrifice of Isaac
narrative. T he details accom panying the scene, such as the whip, the knife, and the
The third panel of the Beth 5Alpha synagogue pavem ent portrays the scene of the donkey’s bell are anachronism s from the contem porary environm ent of the artist.
sacrifice of Isaac, depicted according to the Biblical source (Gen. 22: 3-14) (fig. 31 T he empty space between images is filled in with plants, due to the horror vacui ele­
and PI. 64). O n the left a donkey carrying wood (cut by the frame) and two young m ent, characteristic to this art.
m en accom pany A braham and Isaac. O ne of the youths stands behind the donkey, T he sacrifice of Isaac (also depicted in a prom inent place in the D u ra Europos
only his upper body showing while the other youth stands beside the donkey, holding synagogue (fig. 32)) is an event which held deep religious implications in Judaism
the reins in his right hand and with a whip fastened to his left hand. T he centre is and later came to symbolize the covenant between God and the Jew ish people. It
occupied by the most dram atic aspect of the story, the H and of God, which appears also became a popular them e in early C hristian art (Smith 1922; G rabar 1968: 25‫־‬
from above, em erging out of a cloud em itting rays. U nder His hand the ram is 26; K raeling 1979: 361-363). G utm ann (1984: 120) contends that the Beth 5Alpha
caught in a thicket, suspended in the air in very unusual posture. A braham is sacrifice scene follows “ an established early Christian ty p e.”
depicted on the right side of the panel, the tallest image in the scene, bearded and
holding Isaac with one hand while in the other he carries a long knife. Isaac is Direction and Organization of the Scene
rendered as a child, with bound hands. T he altar is at the far right with flames leap­ Details on this panel have been subjected to m any iconographical interpretations.
ing up (fig. 31). Sukenik (1932: 40) m aintains that the description of the scene is from left to right,
290 JEW ISH ART A ND ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY
although it does not follow the exact narration of the Biblical story. Yeivin (1946:
21-22) rem arks that the depiction was constructed from right to left, as proved by
the fact that the donkey is incomplete.
The composition is narratively divided into three events: 1) the donkey and the
lads, 2) the ram , thicket and the H and of God, and 3) A braham , Isaac and the altar.
The dram atic centre is stressed by the H and of God, by the inscriptions, and by the
exceptional posture of the ram . Sukenik (1932: 40) m aintains that the reason for the
position of the ram is simply lack of space whereas Yeivin (1946: 32) suggests that
the ram is rendered after naturalistic observation, as well as being a continuation
of a prototype in M esopotam ian art. In comparable C hristian scenes the ram is
seldom tied to a thicket, but usually stands aside (see Ehrenstein 1923: figs. I X .2-4,
8, 11, 13-15, 18; also G utm ann 1984: 117-118). The ra m ’s single horn close to the
tree is also exceptional, and seems to illustrate the Biblical sentence “ a ram caught
in a thicket by his horns” (Gen. 22:13). T he H and symbolizing God is similar in
its depiction to that in the D ura Europos scene (see fig. 32) where it also appears
IC ON OG R A PH Y A ND SYMBOLISM 291
in the centre. In Christian art the H and of God is depicted reaching out of a cloud
or the sky (see Ehrenstein 1923: figs. I X .5-8, 11, 18) where it is an im portant symbol
of G od’s intervention.
A braham is rendered as the chief figure, by being shown as exceeding all other
figures in height; by this device his prom inence in the story is shown. Isaac is also
depicted in an unusual attitude: he is not bound to the altar but is suspended in the
air and seems to be held by Abraham . At D ura Europos he is depicted bound and
lying on the altar (fig. 32). In C hristian art, Isaac is depicted in either of two poses
(proposed by Smith, 1922: 163): 1) on the altar (an Eastern-H ellenistic type), or 2)
kneeling near A braham (usually the position employed on the fresco of the
catacombs of Rom e, and the western-Hellenistic type). Sukenik (1932: 41) states
that A braham is carrying Isaac on his way to place him on the altar; at D ura
Europos the depiction m ore closely follows the Biblical story. It is possible that at
Beth 5Alpha the end of the story is depicted: after A braham has seen the substitute
ram , he removes Isaac from the altar. T hus, the scene expresses the m om ent of
rescue, of salvation.
Two details bear some similarity to the scene at the D ura Europos synagogue: the
altars, with their architectural renditions, and the wood on the altar depicted as
triangles (see K raeling 1979: PI. 51; Goodenough 1958, IX: 73).
The source for the panel of the sacrifice of Isaac was the w ritten Biblical story.
T he scene unfolds from left to right, following the action and yet the dram atic climax
of the story is shown in its centre. The close relation with the w ritten source is
verified by the inscriptions accom panying the depiction which quote exactly and
concisely the Biblical source. The ra m ’s single horn caught in the thicket is a direct
illustration of the Biblical description. Isaac is portrayed at the very m om ent of
being taken down by A braham from the altar; this episode is the highlight of the
story, determ ining its purpose and conclusion by expressing the m om ent of rescue
and of salvation. In short, a straightforward narrative depiction of a popular Biblical
scene becomes the symbol and expression of the desire for and hope of salvation.
In Early C hristian art, where the sacrifice is depicted on catacomb walls and sar­
cophagi, in a style part realistic and part symbolic, the most typical scenes show a
dram atic-sym bolic rendering of A braham with the knife, Isaac, and G od’s H and.
Meaning in Judaism and Christianity
T he sacrifice of Isaac as the pre-figuration of the life and sacrifice of Jesus was
a common feature of C hristian art and was related symbolically to death and salva-
292 JEW ISH ART A N D ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE A N TIQ UITY IC O N OG RAPH Y AND SYMBOLISM

tion. In Judaism , however, the sacrifice is a symbol of life and of belief in G od’s
grace, “ an example of divine help as well as confirm ation of G od’s covenant with
Israel” (Schapiro 1960: 10). Because of this contrast in attitude towards the subject,
the Jew s felt the appropriate place to portray the scene was the synagogue, whereas
the Early Christians preferred to show it in their funerary art, in catacombs and on
sarcophagi. Furtherm ore, the lack of sanctity towards the topic shown by the Jews
of Beth 3Alpha, where the mosaic was intended to be trodden on, would not have
been acceptable to the C hristian believers (see also K raeling 1979: 361-363 for a sug­
gestion of two traditions in Judaism : a symbolic and a narrative, with different
sources).

Noah’s Ark
T he mosaic panel depicting N oah’s Ark in the G erasa synaogogue is dated to the
early fifth century (Kraeling 1938: 323; Sukenik 1932: 55-56 suggests a date between
the m id-fourth century and 530 CE). This mosaic scene was found under a church
apse built over the synagogue structure in 530 CE. T he scene is a rendition of the
story of N oah’s Ark incorporated into an oblong mosaic panel in the East vestibule
of the synagogue (fig. 33 and PI. 65). The N oah’s Ark scene could be observed by
those entering the East courtyard. In the centre of the East frame is an inscription
placed upside down in relation to the entrance of the vestibule. The scene depicts
the animals leaving N oah’s Ark as described in Genesis 8, 19, each with its own
kind. The fram ed central panel consists of three rows of realistically rendered
animals, striding from left to right: the upper row shows the birds, the middle row,
the m am m als, and the lower, the reptiles (Sukenik 1932: 55, note 4, gives their iden­
tification). T he south corner of the panel is only partly preserved. A dove holding
an olive twig sits on a branch. U nder the branch two partly preserved heads are in­
scribed “ Shem ” and “J a p h e t;” originally N oah’s family was probably depicted
sacrificing or leaving the A rk (PL 65). T he panel is bordered by a frieze of beasts i I
chasing their victims, with flowers and plants filling the space (fig. 33b) (Sukenik,
1932: 56, proposes that they describe the situation before the flood. Goodenough, i i
1968, X II: 133, asserts that the beasts in the border symbolize im m ortality and after
life). A Greek inscription around a m enorah and ritual implements appears in the
centre of the East border frieze. The partly destroyed inscription contains the
greeting “ Holy place. Am en. Sela. Peace to the Synagogue.” (fig. 17) The border
frieze scene begins at the inscription with the beasts facing opposite directions.
The Gerasa scene comm emorates the m om ent when the animals leave N oah’s
Ark, while N oah and his family celebrate the event or sacrifice in its honour, with
I i j I HLZB
33a. Plan of Gerasa Synagogue.
294 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY
33b. N o a h ’s Ark, Gerasa.
the dove looking on. T he rendition of the scene is very different from the way it ap­
pears in Early Christian art on catacombs and sarcophagi. T he emphasis in Gerasa
is on the anim als and the story is depicted in a narrative-illustrative form, with the
animals m arching along the panel: in contrast to this in the art of the catacombs no
depiction of the animals is found, a symbolic rendering of the Ark (a box) with Noah
in it, sending off the dove is all that appears. O nly one similar scene is
depicted on a mosaic pavem ent in the D iaspora in M isis-M opsuestia (Cilicia): a cen­
tral scene of N oah’s Ark, surrounded by various anim als is all that appears. This
is found in a building which Avi-Yonah considers (1981g: 186-190) to be a
synagogue. T he depiction shows the Ark, a chest, surrounded by two rows of
animals. The outer row depicts wild beasts, and the inner depicts a variety of birds.
At G erasa the artist has chosen to render that part of the story where all are quitting
the Ark: in this way he suggests the symbolic m eaning of the event, which is that
God has promised not to destroy the world again. By comparison, Early Christian
art sees the N oah’s A rk story as symbolizing death and resurrection: the Ark
represents faith in the C hurch which will bring salvation to the believer.
Daniel in the Lions’ Den
The N acaran synagogue is dated to the sixth century and the panel containing the
Biblical scene is depicted between the zodiac panel and the T orah shrine panel (fig.
34 and fig. X I. 11). Its them e is Daniel in the lions’ den. T he hum an figures on this
mosaic pavem ent were destroyed by iconoclasts sometime during the sixth century.
Daniel himself is poorly preserved with only his arm s rem aining in an orans posture.
H e stands between two lions, also dam aged, rendered in schematic style. Next to
IC O N OG RAPH Y AND SYMBOLISM 295
D aniel’s head is the inscription “ Daniel, shalom ,” and next to the lion’s legs are
m ore inscriptions.
A similar theme may be portrayed on the mosaic pavem ent of Susiya, in the
westernm ost panel. However, as it is almost completely destroyed, and only the end
of the word [Dani]*/ is preserved (G utm an et al. 1981: 126) it is difficult to make a
positive identification. The theme of Daniel in the lions’ den is also popular in Early
C hristian art, appearing on catacombs and sarcophagi in Rom e (Ehrenstein 1923:
chap. X X X V I: figs. 1-3). Scholars relate this theme to a death cult and think that
the scene symbolizes a person who is saved because of his belief. Goodenough (1953,
II: 129) relates it to the Beth DAlpha mosaic and m aintains that D aniel’s scene sym­
bolizes victory over death, as illustrated by the word shalom.
This scene, by contrast to the previously discussed Biblical scenes found on
synagogue pavem ents, is depicted symbolically and not in the narrative style used
elsewhere. This, however, m ay be due to the fact that a representation of a figure
flanked by lions would be enough to suggest the them e to observers, because the
story only concerns Daniel himself and the lions.
The Twelve Tribes
T he J a p h ica pavem ent’s central westernmost panel depicts a square containing a
large circle within which another, smaller circle is inscribed. In the space between
the two circles twelve small interlacing circles appear. U nfortunately only two of
these circles survive (fig. 35; Sukenik 1951a: 17). The central circle contains a bull
facing right, and the other circle, which is badly dam aged, depicts the head of a
horned anim al facing left and with two feet. Above its head are three H ebrew letter:
R IM . Presum ably this is Ephraim , one of the twelve tribes, whose symbol is re^em
296 JEW ISH ART AND ARCH AEOLOGY IN LATE A N TIQ UITY IC O N OG RAPH Y A N D SYMBOLISM 297

( = wild ox). T he other bull probably represents M anasseh. Sukenik (1951a: 18)
m aintains that the circles contain the symbols of the twelve tribes. This, he asserts,
is illustrated by a passage in Midrash Rabba (BaMidbar 82), which says, regarding the
two surviving circles “ ...O n the flag of Ephraim was em broidered a bull (or
‘‘ox’’)... ’’, “ .. .O n the flag of the tribe of M anasseh was em broidered a wild ox ’’
However, a discrepancy exists here, as the sign of E phraim in the mosaic is recent
(the wild ox), and the sign of M anasseh is the bull (Sukenik 1951a: 20-23; cf.
Goodenough, 1953, I: 217-218; 1964, V III: 168, who suggests that this mosaic por­
trays a zodiac). The Ja p h ica circle design however is* a different scheme from that
of the Jew ish zodiac (see p. 305) (see also Naveh 1978: 70). This design is unique
and has not been found in any other symbolic or iconographical portrayals in ancient
Jew ish art. M oreover, its them e probably is not taken from the Bible, but from R a b ­
binical literature.

King David
m \ i I ,2 *m
a A synagogue decorated with figurative art was discovered on the G aza seashore.
An inscription dates its pavem ent to the years 508-509 CE (see p. 396; Avi-Yonah
1966: 221-223; O vadiah 1969.). The floor of the synagogue is paved with mosaics
consisting of an inhabited scroll design in a side aisle (see p. 312, PI. 86.a-c) while
the section of the western end of the central nave is depicted with a fragm entary
representation of K ing D avid, crowned and dressed in a Byzantine em peror’s robes.
H e sits on a throne playing the lyre and faced by anim als, of which only the lion,
serpent and giraffe survive (Pis. 66, 67). (Barash, 1980: 17-20, m aintains that the
giraffe depiction is highly unusual in connection with K ing David, but appears in
renditions of scenes containing O rpheus.) This G aza depiction represents K ing
D avid as O rpheus charm ing wild beasts. T he pagan world saw O rpheus as a symbol
of heavenly peace, whereas Early C hristian art depicted O rpheus as symbolizing
Jesus, the good shepherd. Barash, in his comprehensive article (1980), proposes that
the David of G aza is a combination of two different iconographic themes: of the
royal David, on the one hand, and of O rpheus charm ing beasts, on the other. C om ­
plete harm ony of style has not been achieved in this allegorical com bination prob­
ably because it had no earlier model on which to draw. Its uniqueness suggests it
was the artist’s own invention. The crown and throne are emphasized, as ceremonial
motifs expressing royal images; they are unknow n in renditions of O rpheus.
An earlier example of the same theme in Jew ish art is the depiction in the D ura
Europos synagogue. A figure, O rpheus, attired in Persian dress, plays the lyre. Next
35. Japhica: a) Plan; b) Mosaic Floor. to him stands a lion and behind him perches an eagle (fig. 36) (K raeling 1979: 223-
298 JEW ISH ART AND ARCH AEO LOG Y IN LATE A N TIQ UITY
36. O rpheus, D u ra Europos.
225; Goodenough 1965, IX : 89ff.). This them e of K ing David as O rpheus could
hardly have been taken from a Biblical story, although stress is laid on the royal im ­
age. It clearly belongs to the adoption of a mythological pagan figure with
iconographic affinities to the image of David as poet, psalmist, and charm er with
music. The D avid-O rpheus m otif was probably appropriated by Jew ish iconography
from the pagan world at the same time retaining its original m eaning of the charm ­
ing of beasts by music, and com bining it with the royal image of David. David, as
the Biblical psalmist king, in this composition, is represented by O rpheus playing
the lyre before the wild beasts.
G aza was an ancient Hellenistic town which had a Hellenistic-Byzantine tradi­
tion; this m ay have influenced the Jew ish com m unity to choose for their synagogue
pavem ent a Biblical figure represented in its original pagan mythological image.
IC ON OG R A PH Y AN D SYMBOLISM 299
David with Goliath’s weapons
A fragm ent of a mosaic floor was found recently in the Galilean synagogue of
M arous (Ilan and D am ati 1984-85). T he rem ains of the mosaic floor were found at
the northern edge of the eastern aisle (Ilan and D am ati 1985: fig. 2); it m easures
1.80 m x 3.00 m and is dated by the excavators to the fifth century. T he mosaic (fig.
V III, 57, PI. 48) depicts the figure of a m an, probably crowned, w earing a short
white tunic with a red cloak over his left shoulder, fastened by a fibula. O n his arm
and hip are symbolic designs (Ilan and D am ati 1985:52 and fig. 3). The figure is
surrounded by weapons: a shield on which he leans, a helm et and a sword in its
sheath with an attached sling. O n the corner of the mosaic along the frame beside
the weapons is an inscription: “ Y udan Son of Shimeon M a n i” which m ay refer to
a donor, it m ay be the artist’s signature, or it m ay be the nam e of the figure itself
(Ilan and D am ati 1985:54-55). M ost likely David is represented, surrounded by the
weapons taken from Goliath, after his victory (as suggested by the late Prof. Yadin
and followed by the excavators Ilan and D am ati 1985:55 and note 12). This would
be the most likely interpretation because depictions on synagogue mosaic pavements
show Biblical (or mythological) personalities, whereas local individuals have never
yet been found portrayed on a mosaic.
The Origin of the Biblical Scene Theme
M ost scholars m aintain that the Biblical scenes appearing in Jew ish art such as
in the D ura Europos frescoes, on the synagogue mosaic floors, as well as O ld T esta­
m ent scenes present in C hristian art, catacomb paintings and church mosaics,
originated in illum inated Biblical m anuscripts first created by A lexandrian Jews in
im itation of the rolls of classical antiquity (R oth 1953: 29, 32, 40, 44; W eitzm an
1957: 89; 1971a: 227-231; 1971b; K raeling 1979: 395-397; Avi-Yonah 1973: 128;
1975a: 65). These m anuscripts may have been written for gentiles, in Greek transla­
tions of the Jew ish Bible (Avi-Yonah 1973: 128). This theory seems highly doubtful
for several reasons: 1) No proof exists as no ancient illum inated m anuscripts dating
to or before the sixth century have ever been found; 2) Sages’ rules about illustration
would have forbidden illum inated m anuscripts of the Bible (also K raeling 1979:
396); 3) The Bible because it is considered so sacred, especially the writing itself,
has never been illustrated in any period, therefore it is highly unlikely that the Bible
would have been illum inated by or for Jew s at this time; 4) T he Dead Sea scrolls,
ranging in tim e from the second century BCE to the second century CE, do not con­
tain even a single illustration; 5) If illustrated m anuscripts had actually existed, and
had been the origins for Biblical scene themes, then a uniform ity of pattern and
300 JEW ISH ART A ND ARCHAEOLO G Y IN LATE A N TIQ UITY
design would be seen in the later Jew ish art. This, however, is not the case and each
Biblical scene portrayed is fundam entally different. At the same time it may
reasonably be inferred that pattern books of Jew ish motifs and themes existed in an ­
tiquity and were used by the Jew ish comm unities, by donors, artists and artisans
(see p. 394). Biblical stories would naturally be included as subject m atter for the
decoration of synagogues. [Thom pson (1973: 46) proposes that pattern books,
panels and cartoons were copied and served wall painters in D ura as they had in
Pompeii.]
Conclusions
A certain changing attitude is discernible in these Biblical scenes which m ay help
to determ ine the developm ent of the Biblical scene depictions from highly-detailed
narrative stories to concise symbolic depictions. For instance, the rendition of
N oah’s Ark at Gerasa is executed in a narrative mode which is stressed by the m any
details. This style suggests an earlier date for G erasa than at Beth 3Alpha where
there is already a tendency towards the symbolic in the narrative of Isaac’s sacrifice.
Daniel, at N acaran, is concisely and completely symbolically rendered in the orans
posture, similar to Early C hristian art depictions. At M arous David is depicted as
a Byzantine w arrior or prom inent figure. Finally, D avid of Gaza is shown as a
Biblical m onarch but in the Hellenistic attitude used for the mythological figure of
O rpheus, as is the C hristian figure of Jesus the Shepherd.
The narrative-historical style in Jew ish art appears by the m id-third century in
the fresco paintings at the D ura Europos synagogue. Synagogal art therefore, as
G rabar m aintains (1968: 95) anticipates C hristian catacomb art of the fourth
century.
T he Biblical scenes found so far do not seem to have a common denom inator as
regards style or origins. However, some similarity does exist in the arrangem ent of
interconnecting panels and subject m atter found both at Beth 5Alpha and N acaran
as to suggest m utual intercourse or social affinities.
Biblical scenes were considered appropriate subject m atter for the synagogue
pavements. They appear to exhibit disregard, however, for the second com m and­
m ent of “ no graven im age.” Furtherm ore, they were trodden upon (even when the
pavements included the H and of God and the ritual objects). This was intentionally
done: if these depictions were stepped upon, they could not then be considered
sacred, and no danger of worshipping graven images could arise (see p. 379).
IC ON OG R A PH Y A N D SYMBOLISM 301
2) Mythological Scenes
The House of Leontis
The sole example of a Jew ish pavem ent depicting several mythological scenes oc­
curs in a house adjoining the small synagogue of Beth She^an (B) (Zori 1966). This
Jew ish house belonged, according to the inscription, to Kyrios Leontis, and is dated
to the sixth century. Its pavem ent is divided into three panels (fig. 37): the upper
panel shows two scenes from the Odyssey: 1) Odysseus fighting the m onster Scylla,
and 2) Odysseus and the Sirens (PI. 68). T he central panel is occupied by a Greek
inscription within a circle which m ay be a wreath, surrounded by birds (PL 69). O n
the right side of the inscription a now m utilated five-branched m enorah is depicted.
A rendition of a Nilotic landscape is shown on the lower panel of the pavements,
including a nilom eter, a representation of “ A lexandria,” a personification of the
Nile, a crocodile attacking a cow, and a sailor in a boat (Pl. 70). Nilotic scenes have
a tradition going back to the Hellenistic period, with m any Nilotic scenes being
depicted in churches at the time of the Leontis house. Avi-Yonah (1972: 121-122)
explains the attraction of these scenes for C hristian art in their representation of the
“ earth-bound” world. A favourite Nilotic subject is that of the crocodile attacking
the cow, which also appears in Nilotic scenes on church floors in Cyrenaica. Alfoldi-
Rosenbaum (1975: 150-151) contends that these motifs were included in the pattern
books of mosaic workshops. They probably did not have any significance on the
church floor, but they m ay have been considered suitable as an expression of the idea
of paradise: the Nile was considered one of the rivers of Paradise. Avi-Yonah pro­
poses (1975a: 54) that this pavem ent indicates that Jew s knew and appreciated
G reek mythology and the Hom eric poems. [Roussin (1981: 6-9) suggests a Jew ish
m eaning for the crocodile-cow scene, interpreting them as Behemoth and Leviatan,
with eschatological connotations.] Finally, it is ju st as probable that Kyrios Leontis
chose this particular Nilotic scene simply because, am ong all the patterns in the p at­
tern book (p. 393) through which he looked, this scene seemed the most attractive
and appropriate to him.
3) The Zodiac Panel
An interesting phenom enon is found in four of the ancient synagogues discovered
so far in Israel. These synagogues, ranging in date from the fourth to sixth centuries,
contain mosaics showing the zodiac cycle (fig. 38) (Hachlili 1977 and bibliography
there, also Avi-Yonah 1981e). This is surprising in view of the pagan origin of the
zodiac, and all the more so, since the mosaic would have been im m ediately visible
302 JEW ISH ART A N D ARCH AEO LO GY IN LATE ANT IQ U ITY IC O N O G RA PH Y A N D SYMBOLISM 303

37. House of Leontis, Beth She-’an.

304 JEW ISH ART A N D ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE A N TIQ UITY
to all who entered the synagogue as it lay inside the m ain entrances. This widespread
use, over two centuries, of a “ pagan” motif, invites m any questions as to its func­
tion in the synagogue.
O ne zodiac mosaic was found at H am m ath Tiberias (fig. 39a, Pl. 71) (D othan
1982). At that time, Tiberias was an im portant Jew ish centre, being the seat of the
Sanhedrin, or Patriarchate, from the end of the third until the fourth centuries. A n­
other mosaic was found at Huseifa (fig. 39b and PL 72) (Avi-Yonah 1934). The third
mosaic comes from Beth 5Alpha (fig. 40a, PL 73), and dates from the time of Ju stin
IC O N OG RAPH Y A N D SYMBOLISM 305
I, 518-527 CE (Sukenik 1932). The fourth mosaic floor was found at N acaran (fig.
40b and PL 74; Vincent 1961). A fifth synagogue, that of Susiya near H ebron (Pl.
75, left corner; see G utm an et al. 1981: 126) did contain at one tim e a zodiac mosaic
floor, but it was later changed into a geometric pattern. This recurrence of the
zodiac design in a num ber of synagogue mosaics, indicates its relevance to religious
thought, and makes it necessary to analyse its place and im portance in synagogal
art.
The Design: Form and Composition
The zodiac cycle in all four synagogues occupies the centre of a three-panel mosaic
floor (figs. X I, 1, 3, 4, 5); another panel below it contains various designs. The
zodiac design cycle consists of a square fram e containing two concentric circles. The
innerm ost circle contains a portrayal of the sun-god in a chariot. T he outer, larger,
circle depicts the zodiac divided into twelve radial units, each one containing one
of the signs and bearing its Hebrew nam e. Outside the zodiac circle and within the
square fram e in its corners, are portrayed symbolically represented busts of the four
seasons. These are nam ed in H ebrew, after the m onth with which the season begins.
T he composition of each mosaic is harm oniously balanced, each section having a
significant and integral place in the design (fig. 38).
Although there are differences in the four Jew ish zodiac designs in the depiction
and execution of the figures the developm ent of a distinctive Jew ish design is discer­
nible. M oreover, the exceptional and unm istakable style of conception of the
figures, in the three parts of the design, the sun god in the central circle, the zodiac
signs in the outer circle and the seasons in the square corners, point to the m eaning
and significance for the Jew ish worshippers.
The sun god is shown frontally (en-face) and occupies the centre of the zodiac. H e
is crowned; a halo radiating light appears above his head. His chariot has two wheels
in front, and is pulled by four horses, two on either side. T he background shows a
crescent m oon and several stars, at Beth 5Alpha (Pl. 76); in N acaran this is depicted
on the front of the sun god’s dress (Pl. 77), and in H am m ath Tiberias the sun god
is shown riding his chariot and holding a globe and whip in his hand (Pl. 78).
The zodiac circle contains the twelve signs of the zodiac (which are identical to the
twelve m onths of the Jew ish year). T he circles at N acaran and Huseifa run
clockwise, whereas at Beth 5Alpha and H am m ath Tiberias counter-clockwise. The
signs do not correspond to the seasons, except at H am m ath Tiberias where they are
306 JEW ISH ART A ND ARCH AEOLOGY IN LATE A N TIQ UITY
coordinated. At Beth 3Alpha and N acaran the zodiac figures are directed outwards
with their feet toward the central circle. At H am m ath Tiberias and Huseifa the
figures are directed inwards, with their heads towards the central circle (figs. 39a‫־‬b,
P is.71-72). T he hum an figures in the mosaic pavem ent at H am m ath Tiberias are
shown in m ovem ent and all the males are portrayed nude. The figures at Beth
3Alpha and N acaran (figs. 40a-b, P is.73-74), however, are shown as static portraits
and are fully clothed. In all the zodiacs the animals are depicted in profile, facing
forward.
T he signs themselves are portrayed with individuality, as illustrated in Pis. 79-82.
Several deserve special attention because of the wide range of styles from synagogue
to synagogue.
Virgo: ( Virgin, Bethulah): In the H am m ath Tiberias mosaic, Virgo is shown as a
robed Greek K ore with a covered head, holding a torch (Pl. 80c). In Beth 3Alpha,
the figure of Virgo resembles a Byzantine queen and is shown seated on a throne
(Pl. 80c) (Sukenik 1932: 37).
Libra (Scales, Moznayim): In three synagogue mosaics, the sign of L ibra is shown
as a hum an figure holding a pair of scales. At H am m ath Tiberias, however, the
figure of Libra represents G reek mythological depictions of the sign but with the ad­
dition of a sceptre (Pl. 81a). In the Beth 3Alpha mosaic the figure of Libra holds the
scales in a very akward position, standing on one leg. T he second leg has been om it­
ted by the artist in order to allow enough room for the scales (Pl. 81a).
Sagittarius (Archer, Kashat): Pagan representations of Sagittarius usually show a half
hum an-half anim al figure, a centaur, shooting a bow and arrow. Depictions of
Sagittarius survive on only two of the mosaic floors, those of Beth 3Alpha and
Huseifa (Pl. 81c), and show it in hum an form, holding a bow and arrow in its left
hand (for Huseifa see Avi-Y onah’s description, 1934: 125). Jew s were probably very
reluctant to depict Sagittarius in its pagan hybrid form, and preferred a hum an ar­
cher, which would have been sufficient to symbolize the Hebrew nam e of Sagit­
tarius: Kashat—the archer.
Capricorn (Goat, Gedi): In the H am m ath Tiberias mosaic, C apricorn takes its com­
m on pagan form of a horned goat with a fish’s tail (Pl. 82a). In the H useifa mosaic,
only the horns of C apricorn rem ain (Pl. 72) and at Beth 3Alpha‫׳‬, where the sign is
partially destroyed, it appears that a kid is depicted (Pl. 82a).
Aquarius ( Water-bearer, Deli): The sign is differently depicted in each of the zodiac
mosaics. At H am m ath Tiberias a figure pours water from an am phora (PL 82b),
which is also the common depiction of A quarius in R om an art (Hachlili 1977: 69;
fig. 14). The Huseifa zodiac portrays A quarius as an am phora with w ater pouring
from it (Pl. 72 and fig. 39b). The Beth 3Alpha sign is unique in that A quarius is
IC O N OG RAPH Y A ND SYMBOLISM 307
shown as a figure draw ing water from a well with a bucket (PL 82b) (bucket is the
translation of the Hebrew word deli).
The Seasons ( Tekufoth)
These are diagonally placed in the four corners of the outer square. They are each
represented by the bust of a wom an w earing jewellery and equipped with identifying
attributes, such as the Jew ish symbol of the shofar, and accom panied by the Jew ish
nam e of the first m onth of each season, except at Huseifa (Pis. 71-74, 83-84). The
Beth 3Alpha winged figures of the seasons are exceptional because of their richly col­
oured jewellery and decorations (Pis. 83-84). A comparison of the seasons in the
Jew ish depictions with those appearing in pagan mosaics dating to the fourth-fifth
centuries reveals similarities in their attributes: most of the figures are represented
by crowned, winged busts. However, there is no consistent similarity (Hachlili 1977:
70-72, figs. 16, 18).
At H am m ath Tiberias and Beth 3Alpha the bust of the season Nisan (Spring) is
placed in the upper left corner with Tammuz (Sum m er) and Tebeth (W inter) running
counterclockwise. At N acaran Nisan (Spring) is in the lower left corner with the other
seasons running in a counterclockwise direction. In Huseifa the only rem aining
representation of the seasons is Tishri (Autum n) which is located in the upper left
corner ( Avi-Yonah 1934: 126-127). T he following descriptions of the seasons
underline the contrasts and comparisons between them and their attributes:
Spring {Nisan) (PL 83a): The figures at both Beth 3Alpha and H am m ath Tiberias
are adorned with bracelets, earrings, and necklaces. T he H am m ath Tiberias figure
is crowned with flowers and holds a bowl of fruit in her right hand whereas the Beth
3Alpha figure includes a shepherd’s crook (pedum ) and a bird (Sukenik 1932: 42).
At N acaran the figure holds a shepherd’s crook, with a sheaf of corn and bird placed
on either side of the image (Sukenik 1932: 42).
Summer (Tammuz) (Pl. 83b): The representation of Sum m er in the mosaic of H am ­
m ath Tiberias is of a jewelled female bust crowned with olive branches, holding a
sickle in her right hand and with a sheaf of corn at her left. The Beth 3Alpha figure
is also of a jewelled female bust, with fruits and field produce in front of it and to
its sides. The rem ains of the mosaic at N acaran show a cluster of grapes and a wand
at the figure’s right and a bird at its left.
Autumn (Tishri) (Pl. 84a): The H am m ath Tiberias mosaic portrays a jewelled
figure crowned with pom egranates and an olive branch, holding a cluster of grapes.
At Beth 3Alpha, the bust is jewelled and crowned, surrounded by pom egranates,
figs, apples, a cluster of grapes, a palm tree, and a bird. T he N acaran bust holds
a crook and shofar in her right hand and has a bird at her side. At Huseifa, where
308 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE A N TIQ UITY
the representation of A utum n is the only rem aining figure, we find a bust with
pom egranates, a palm tree, and a shofar at the right of the figure.
Winter (Tebeth) (Pl. 84b): T he bust of W inter in H am m ath Tiberias is draped with
a scarf over the head, and has an am phora with w ater flowing from it at its left. The
Beth 5Alpha figure has only a branch with two leaves and a cylindrical object
(Sukenik 1932: 39; Goodenough 1953, I: 249, n. 499).
T he zodiac is known also in pagan art, at first depicted on ceilings, and only later
worked into mosaic pavem ents (Hachlili 1977: 61-65, figs. 8-12, 17). However, im ­
portant differences exist between the Jew ish and pagan portrayals. It is only in the
Jew ish versions of the zodiac that the triple depiction of the sun god, the zodiac signs
and the four seasons appear in the same composition. O utside of Jew ish sources the
three elements never appear in the same mosaic. O ne or two of the elements are
always missing, or are replaced by other motifs, such as seven planets in place of
the sun god. Decorative patterns in addition replace the four seasons in the corners,
or, as on the Antioch mosaic (Hachlili 1977: fig. 12) or in the Beth She5an m onastery
(Hachlili 1977: fig. 17), the work perform ed during each m onth, the labours of the
m onth, replaces the signs of the zodiac.
Style
T he Jew ish version of the zodiac, unlike its pagan equivalent, has a specific
standard design which is repeated in all four of the mosaic floors discussed above.
The diverging styles of the synagogue zodiac panels are best explained by a com­
parison between the earliest floor at H am m ath Tiberias, of the fourth century (Pl.
71), and the sixth century Beth 5Alpha mosaic (Pl. 73). The earlier mosaic contains
three dimensional, naturalistically portrayed and anim ated figures, showing a
m arked Hellenistic style, whereas the Beth 5Alpha floor is in a stiffer, rustic style,
with distorted and anatomically disproportionate figures without indication of sex,
except through jewellery in the case of the women. C olour is used to emphasize dif­
ferent parts of the body. T he later floor gives a linear, two dimensional impression,
the flat figures being shown frontally.
Meaning and Significance
Scholars have attem pted to explain the significance and m eaning of the Jewish
zodiac panel in various ways (Hachlili 1977: 72). Goodenough (1958, X II: 214-215)
claims that the zodiac containing a portrayal of the sun god Helios symbolized for
IC ON OG R A PH Y A N D SYMBOLISM 309
the pagans the supremacy of the law of nature, of the cosmic order under the
sovereignty of Sol Invictus. H e further claims that for the Jew s, “ Helios and the
chariot symbolized the divine charioteer of Hellenistic Judaism , God him self.”
Avigad, on the other hand (1976: 283), proposes that “ the figure in the chariot was
the sun, itself a component of the cycle of cosmic forces depicted in the zodiac.” The
most logical explanation, however, seems to be that the Jew ish zodiac mosaic func­
tioned as a calendar (suggested first in connection with the list of the priestly courses
by Avi-Yonah, 1964: 56-57; also Hachlili 1977: 76), consisting as it does of three
compulsory sections: 1) the four seasons which represent the year; 2) the twelve signs
of the zodiac representing the m onths, and 3) the sun god symbolizing the day, the
night being denoted by the background of the crescent m oon and stars. Additional
support for this interpretation is provided by the discovery of a mosaic inscription
in the cEn-G edi synagogue floor, dating to the late sixth century (PL 51), which in­
cludes the names of the zodiac signs followed by the nam es o f the corresponding
Jew ish m onths. The w ritten inscription m ust have replaced the illustrated zodiac
mosaic during this later period, and it m ay have been that the images of the N acaran
floor were torn up at this same time. This change in the Jew ish attitude towards
figurative art produced a general prohibition against representing hum an and
anim al forms.
It is highly characteristic of Jew ish art that a pagan subject, in this case the zodiac,
should be adapted to express a Jew ish idea such as an annual calendar. In the
R om an world zodiac signs are of solely cosmic and astronomical significance; m ore­
over in C hristian, as in R om an art, the calendar is represented by the labours of
the m onths (Hachlili 1977: fig. 17). Jew ish art preferred an abstract and symbolic
zodiac, rather than the naturalistic representation of hum an activity depicted on the
C hristian examples, in order to assure the religious nature of the calendar. The fact
that the zodiac was used m any times makes it clear that the Jew ish com m unity was
not interested merely in a strictly decorative design for its floors. T here m ust have
been something unique about this particular design that caused the com m unity to
wish to adopt it. Probably it regarded the zodiac as a suitable vehicle for expressing
conceptual needs. The com m unity’s intent was not only to portray a decorative
design but also to express a deeper im port; in this balanced representation of the
three elements, sun god, zodiac and seasons, a two-fold purpose, of significance and
design, could be achieved. A nnual religious rituals consequently could be
graphically portrayed in the synagogue’s interior decoration itself. From this it can
be seen that the fundam entally pagan zodiac cycle came to serve the Jew ish com­
m unity as a popular, symbolic calendar, and was employed as a significant
fram ework for the annual synagogue rituals.
 IC ON OG R A PH Y AN D SYMBOLISM
310 JEW ISH ART A ND ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE A N TIQ UITY

4) Inhabited Scrolls
The “ inhabited scroll” composition was popular and fashionable during the sixth
century and is one of the m ost common patterns found on church pavem ents (Avi-
Yonah 1981b: 364; K itzinger 1965: 347-348). It also appears on three synagogue
pavements as complete carpets: M acon, G aza and the Beth She^an B small
synagogue (figs. 41-42 and Pis. 85-87). Two of these, M a con and Gaza, are situated
in the southern part of the Land of Israel and their design is also common to church
pavements in the same area, such as Shellal, cEn H anniya, cAsida, and H azor, as
well as the “ A rm enian” church at Jerusalem , which Avi-Yonah (1981d) relates to
a school at G aza (cf. Hachlili 1986). (Recently several other churches with “ in­
habited scroll patterns” have been unearthed in Israel—at H erodium , Hevel Hab-
sor and Beth G uvrin.) T he inhabited scroll design was usually executed on the
mosaic pavem ent in long and narrow rooms. T he pavem ent is divided into three to
five vertical columns of medallions, generally filled by antithetic groups of animals
symmetrically flanking the central axial column which usually contains objects. Vine
branches form ing the medallions issue from an am phora flanked by peacocks or
horned anim als at the base edge of the pavem ent.

The M ocan Pavement (Avi-Yonah 1960b: 25-35).

T he mosaic pavem ent fills the entire width of the nave, originally 10.20 m. x 5.40
m ., and is now partially dam aged and lost. T he composition is divided into 55 cir­
cular medallions in five vertical columns with eleven horizontal rows. Vine branches
issuing from an am phora in place of the lowest central medallion form the
medallions (fig. 41). T he medallions of the central axial column contain objects,
flanked by columns symmetrically containing alternated birds and beasts in an ­
tithetic positions. A symbolically decorated panel is inserted into.the upper part of
the pavem ent in front of the apse. This panel contains: a m enorah in its centre
flanked by two lions, with four other medallions below which are filled with symbolic
palm trees and pairs of doves. The m enorah is flanked by a pair of lions, a pair of
ethrogs, a shofar and a lulav (PI. 87). This “ symbolic” panel suggests that the
Jew ish com m unity who ordered this comm on inhabited scroll design wanted even
so to be m indful of the im portant point that the floor was situated in a synagogue.
Avi-Yonah (1960b: 32) m aintains that the vine branch pattern serves merely as a
pleasing design and that the contents of the upper panel are the real symbols m eant
to lead one up spiritually towards the apse.
Renditions on the pavem ent are sometimes formalized. Beasts are depicted
realistically in quite naturalistic poses. T he artists show a fine sense of hum our, for
41. Inhabited Scrolls, M a con.
312 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLO GY IN LATE A N TIQ UITY IC O N O G RA PH Y A N D SYMBOLISM 313

example in the hen laying an egg, the depiction of the hunting dog, the elephants
and the leopard cub playing outside the leopard medallion.

The Gaza Pavement (Pl. 86a‫־‬c).

The inhabited scroll pavem ent is situated in the southernm ost aisle of the G aza
synagogue (O vadiah 1981: 130). The composition is divided into m ore than thirty
circular medallions in three vertical columns; as it is partly dam aged, only ten rows
survive: the lower part is missing, and it is difficult to determ ine if the vine branches
form ing the medallions issue from an am phora or an acanthus head (Avi-Yonah
1981d: 389). M ost of the medallions contain beasts and birds. The arrangem ent is
of three animals in the medallions of each row, connected* horizontally, especially the
anim al chase scenes in rows 3, 7, and 9 (Pl. 86a‫־‬c). In the other rows either a bird
or a beast in the centre is flanked symmetrically by two animals facing each other
in an antithetic composition. Opposing this arrangem ent is row 2, where peacocks
flank an inscription (com m em orating the donors M enachem and Yeshuca, sons of
Jesse); and row 6, in which a bird cage flanked by partridges is depicted in the cen­
tral medallion (Pl. 86b). T he rendition of the animals, which is sometimes im pres­
sionistic, sometimes naturalistic and full of life, includes a lioness and cub, a giraffe,
a tigress, a zebra, and a donkey (Pl. 86).

The Beth She^an B Pavement (fig. 42 and Pl. 85) (Bahat 1981a: 82-85).
A variation of the inhabited scroll pattern is to be found on this pavem ent. A t­
tached to the House of Leontis (see p. 301), the synagogue has a mosaic pave­
m ent with a wide, ornate border, and a central panel consisting of nine medallions
(three columns and three rows). An am phora at its base edge is flanked by two
horned anim als, either ram s or goats. A m enorah occupies the central medallion
42. Inhabited Scrolls, Beth SheDan B.
with an ethrog flanking it and a lamp suspended from it, and the word shalom written
above it (fig. 6). A peacock, enface fills the upper central medallion. Two medallions
are lost, so it is impossible to determ ine whether the scene was symmetrical (Bahat the space around and outside the m enorah medallion. In the centre of the upper part
1981a) , or whether each medallion contained a different anim al, like the Beth of this border is a dedicatory inscription in a tabula ansata (fig. 42 and Pl. 85). The
G uvrin church floor (Hachlili 1986). style of this pavem ent is fairly similar to the style of the inhabited scroll pavem ent
A border design surrounds the central panel, and consists of four corner am ­ in the m onastery at Beth She^an, room L (Pl. 107). Probably both were executed
phorae with vines issuing from them , and intertw ining anim al chase scenes. Am ong by a common workshop or by the same artist (see p. 390).
the depicted animals are a bear, fox, hare, dog, deer, hen, and also an elephant Differences in execution and composition exist am ong the synagogue pavements.
which appears in only one other site, at the M acon synagogue. The chase scenes At Gaza the design includes at least three columns of medallions, each consisting of
show a fox chasing a hare, and a bear chasing a deer (fig. 42 and Pl. 85). Birds fill at least eleven rows. The Beth Sh^an B pavem ent is a square composition of three
314 JEW ISH ART AND ARCH AEO LOG Y IN LATE A N TIQ UITY
43. Inhabited Scrolls, Shellal Church.
columns, each having three medallions in the centre of the pavem ent. At M acon are
eleven rows of five medallions each. T he arrangm ent here (and at the Shellal (fig.
43) and “ A rm enian” church of Jerusalem , fig. 43) emphasises the central axial col­
um n which contains objects flanked by symmetrical antithetic animals. O n the other
hand, the G aza synagogue depicts no objects, except for a bird cage and inscription.
The arrangem ent here is horizontal, each row having a group of three animals, con­
IC ON OG R A PH Y AND SYMBOLISM 315
nected by a chase scene or by a symmetrical composition of animals facing towards
the central medallion.
Them atic structure in each of these synagogue pavem ents is different: at M acon,
objects only are depicted in the central axial column; chase scenes connecting from
two to three medallions are found only at Gaza; Beth She^an B, on the other hand,
has a central axial emphasis on the Jew ish symbol.
N aturalistic and impressionistic renditions characterize the G aza pavem ent, and
are also apparent in the animals which break out from the bounds of the medallions
(PI. 86). The design at M acon is realistic but m ore stylized (fig. 41 and PI. 87). Both
pavem ents exhibit a rustic sense of hum our. G aza has a donors’ com m em oratory
inscription placed in the central axial medallion flanked by peacocks (PI. 86b),
whereas M acon has a panel of Jew ish symbols in its upper section (PI. 87). Beth
Sh‫*־‬an B has a medallion filled with Jew ish symbols in the centre of the design (PI.
85).
T he inhabited scroll pattern constitutes a design commonly used during the sixth
century in the Levant, both in church and synagogue pavem ents. This pattern took
the place of a geom etrically-patterned carpet, and evenly covers the entire floor (Kit-
zinger 1965b: 24). The animals, birds and objects which occupy the medallions add
their part to the harm onious and integrated impression these carpets give. (See the
border of the Beth 5Alpha mosaic floor which portrays an inhabited scroll frame,
filled with anim als, objects and genre scenes (fig. X , 33).
T he following characteristics of the inhabited scroll pattern are shared by sixth
century pavem ents of both churches and synagogues, according to Avi-Yonah
(1960b: 31; 1981d: 394; also Hachlili 1986):
1) A pattern of an all-over and aesthetically pleasing composition.
2) A formalized geometric m otif of vine branches dividing the floor into circular
medallions.
3) Stylization of fauna and flora.
4) R hythm ic, symmetrical groups arranged horizontally in antithetic groups on
both sides of a central axial column.
5) Proportions according to the size of the medallions, thus no difference m ade
in the size of the animals or birds.
6) Horror vacui.
7) Descriptive isolation.
To these common characteristics should be added another which occurs ex­
clusively on synagogue pavem ents, that is, the Jew ish symbols depicted in a central
position on the M acon and Beth She‫*־‬an B pavements.
316 JEW ISH ART AND ARCH AEOLOGY IN LATE A N TIQ UITY
M ost of the motifs used in these mosaics are not exclusive to the inhabited scroll
pavem ents, but also occur on other types of all-over geometric patterned pavements
(see for instance the N acaran synagogue’s front panel (fig. X I .4), and the church
mosaics of G erasa, M adeba, and M ount Nebo). The appearance in both contexts
infers that its designs and motifs are simply decorative. Furtherm ore, the addition
of the symbolic panel to the synagogue mosaic by the Jew s supports this inference
as it is clear that there was a need to differentiate the building of the synagogue from
the neighbouring churches also decorated with inhabited scrolls (Avi-Yonah 1960b:
32).
All the details of the pavem ent, both the general composition of the floor, the in­
dividual patterns and motifs, and especially the Jew ish symbolic objects, were taken
from pattern books according to individual or com m unal taste. This can be deduced
from the uniform ity of and similarity in composition and motif. As the individual
styles are obviously dissimilar, however, there m ust have been m any artists and
workshops producing mosaics in different parts of the country (see p. 390). It is also
possible that certain combinations of motifs recurring in synagogues m ay have been
preferred by the Jewish com m unity without specific significance attached to it as,
for instance, the m otif of the bird cage (see p. 337).
Finally it is im portant to emphasize that Jew ish inhabited scroll mosaics are
distinctive for two reasons. First, because of the addition of Jew ish symbols to the
composition in the synagogues of M acon and Beth She^an B; second, because no
hum an figures are depicted in the medallions, although genre and vintage scenes are
depicted in m any of the church mosaics.
C H A PT E R T EN
M O T IF S O F JE W IS H A R T S
The discussion of the motifs in the following pages concentrates on popular and
common motifs in Jew ish art which will be shown to indicate a persistent preference
for particular themes in Jew ish ornam entation.
Several sources are posited for the motifs used in Jew ish art. 1) T radition and the
continuation of popular motifs descending from Jew ish art of the Second Tem ple
period (p. 79ff.). 2) Selected decorative patterns and motifs taken from contem ­
porary arts (G raeco-Rom an, Syrian and N abatean), but devoid of their symbolic
context and significance. 3) Chosen motifs from pattern books. 4) M otifs of symbolic
significance for Judaism (discussed in C hapter IV, pp. 79-83). A m otif either consists
of a com bination of several antithetic or heraldic elements such as lions flanking a
m enorah or Nikae flanking a wreath, or of a single image or object such as a rosette.
The motifs discussed include:
A) Flora, plant ornam ents; B) Geom etric motifs; C) Fauna, anim al motifs; D)
H um an figures; E) Mythological motifs; F) G enre motifs.
Definite tendencies betray themselves in the persistent selection by the Jew s of
Late A ntiquity of heraldic and antithetic symmetrical designs, such as lions, eagles,
bulls, Nikae, peacocks, birds, horned anim als, dolphins, and rosettes, which are
depicted on sarcophagi, synagogue lintels, friezes, and mosaic floors.
A common source for the motifs in Jew ish art, most probably a pattern book, is
indicated by the stylization of pose and posture as well as the patterning, for the
representations of animals, plants and other ornam ents; it is less likely that the
motifs were directly copied from nature.
A) F lora, P lant O rnam ents
Plant ornam ents were popular and widespread in Jew ish synagogal and funerary
art, occurring on sarcophagi, on architectural decoration as well as on mosaic
pavem ents. The repertoire of plant ornam ents includes independent and
recognizable species as well as decorative compositions, and repetitive all-over
motifs which sometimes change into geometric patterns (Avi-Yonah 198l a : 66 ff.).
318 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY

The Vine
M ost popular am ong the plant motifs is the vine which appears in Jew ish art
already in the Second Tem ple period (figs. IV , 16, 21, Hachlili 1985:119-123). The
vine is presented stylized; the bunches of grapes and leaves are arranged unnaturally
in various geometric forms, sometimes so regularly rendered that the effect is of an
abstract pattern. O ne type of grape cluster is typical of Jew ish art: a central bunch
flanked by two smaller bunches—see fig. IV , 8 (Avi-Yonah 198l a : 70). The most
common m otif is the vine scroll either carved or depicted on mosaic (Avi-Yonah
198l a : 79-82). A vine scroll is carved on the Beth Shecarim “ Shell” sarcophagus (Pl. 0 1M
30). Examples occur on synagogue lintels such as at Naveh, Chorazin, N abratein, 1. “ N ik a e” Sarcophagus, Beth Sh ecarim.
cAhm adieh, K anef and B athra (fig. V III, 52). The K anef entrance frame has a
stylized all-over vine scroll pattern (fig. V III.41). O n mosaic floors the vine scroll
is found on borders, and the inhabited scroll pavements in particular use vine scroll
medallions (figs. IX .41, 42 and Pl. 87). Avi-Yonah (1960b: 32) m aintains that the
vine branch pattern served as a carpet design, m eant to lead up to the symbols, as
at M a con. T he vine in Jew ish art is plainly an ornam ental design used to decorate
confined spaces or to cover complete floors. Its only symbolic connotation m ight be
due to the fact that it is one of the “ seven species” (D eut. 8:8; Avigad 1976: 2; but
see Goodenough, 1956, VI: 126 ff., who associates the vine with mystic Dionysian
cults).

The Wreath
The wreath in antiquity symbolized victory and peace. In Hellenistic funerary
paintings and reliefs the w reath was a comm on m otif which signified imm ortality.
The wreath was also one of the most comm on motifs in Jew ish decorative art, used
already in the Second Tem ple period (figs. IV , 7, 8, p. 80: Hachlili 1985: 123-124).
In early depictions the w reath is found alone (Avi-Yonah 1981a: 76-77) whereas in 0i 1-----1-----1-----1-----1-----1----- 1-----1----- 1-----11m
later renditions it is usually depicted as a central m otif flanked by figures such as
Nikae, dolphins, eagles, bull heads, and vine scrolls; other motifs are also shown 2. ‘ 'A canthus A ” Sarcophagus, Beth Shecarim.
inside it: lion head, m enorah, conch, and geometric designs; see, for instance, the
Beth Shecarim “ N ikae” (fig. 1) and “ D aughters” sarcophagi (Avigad 1967: Pl.
X X X IX ), and the frieze fragm ent from C horazin (Pl. 45). C arved lintels include
wreaths flanked by eagles (fig. V III.46), by Nikae (figs. V III.45), or by am phorae
and pom egranates, and by rosettes at K azrin, and Tybe (fig. V III, 53a, c).

3. Barcam , R elief.
 320 JEW ISH ART A ND ARCH AEOLOGY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY
Garlands
A common decorative pattern in G raeco-R om an art, the garland, is used
-sporadically in Jewish art. It is found in Beth Shecarim on several sarcophagi: the
“ eagles,” “ B ucrania,” “ m ask,” “ A canthus A ” and “ B” and others (fig. 2;
Avigad 1976: Pis. X L I, X L II, X L V , X L V II, X L V III, LI). O n the soffit of the
Gush H alav synagogue lintel an eagle is flanked by garlands (fig. 20a).
B) S elected G e o m e t r ic O rnam ents
The Rosette
T he rosette was a most frequently used m otif in Jew ish art of the Second Tem ple
period (figs. 11,9; IV , 16). Several synagogue lintels are decorated with carved
rosettes, at cA m m udim (KW 1916: figs. 140-131) and Tybe (Golan) (fig. V III.53b)
and sarcophagi from Beth Shearim also carry carved rosettes (fig. 2). Significantly,
the rosette is an exclusively Jew ish ornam ent in the Second Tem ple period and per­
sists in later periods. It seems to be a strictly decorative design, devoid of any ancient
symbolism (Avi-Yonah 198l a : 97-99).
Inhabited Double Meander
This m otif was popular in carved architectural decorations on lintels, capitals, and
architraves, in the Galilee and Golan, as well as in Syrian R om an art. It is to be
seen in the synagogues of B arcam (fig. 3), and on the Naveh lintels (fig. V III.54).
In the Golan it is found on an architrave at Dikke (KW 1916: figs. 235, 236), on
a door-post stone at D abbura (M aoz 1981b: 109), in the circular design on the side
of the K anef doorpost (fig. IX . 25b), and is carved on a capital from the Gam la
synagogue (M aoz 1981b: 36). The inhabited double m eander is common on border
designs of mosaic pavem ents, such as Susiya and M acoz H ayim (Pis. 75, 95).
C) Fauna, A n im a l M o t if s
Anim al motifs appear frequently in Jew ish art, and sometimes display O riental
influences. Some of these anim als, such as the lion, bull and eagle, possess religious
symbolism in pagan arts as astral and solar symbols. In Jew ish art they occur as
motifs deprived of their pagan religious symbolism (Avi-Yonah 198l a : 65).
M OTIFS OF JEW ISH ART 321
Lions
The depiction of lions in association with the Jew ish symbols of the T orah shrine
and the m enorah does suggest a certain contextual significance for these animals.
A pair of lions flanks the T orah shrine in the Beth 5Alpha mosaic pavem ent (PI.
102), and flank the m enorah on the M a con floor (PL 87). Lions are also found
carved on stone aediculae lintel at N abratein (fig. V III. 18, PL 24 and p. 184).
These finds seem to indicate that the lions were persistently selected in their capacity
as power motifs or images of vigil to adorn synagogues; some hint of the tradition
of the lion symbolizing Ju d a h , however, rem ains in these representations. Lions are
a common m otif in Jew ish art, and appear in sculpture and mosaics depicted in
several standard types of ornam entation:
a) A symmetrical heraldic m otif of lions flanking objects, such as a vase, a
m enorah, tree, bull’s head or a hum an figure, is a frequent occurrence in Jew ish
synagogal and funerary art. Lions flanking a vase or trees are carved on lintels from
H . cA m m udim , C apernaum , H . Sum m aqe (fig. 4), and are seen on the mosaic floor
of Beth She5an B (fig. 5). The Beth Shecarim “ L ion” sarcophagus depicts a lion and
lioness flanking a vase (fig. 6a). A lintel found near Tiberias probably belongs to a
synagogue. It is carved with flanking lions placing their paws on bulls’ heads (PL
91). This lintel resembles the H . cA m m udim lintel.
A symmetrical repetition of representations of lions in an antithetic compostion
is also common on mosaic floors. Lions flank various objects and figures:
i) the T orah shrine scene at Beth 5Alpha (fig. IX .8b; PL 102) (similar depictions
are found on gold glasses from catacombs in Rom e, fig. I X .9),
ii) a m enorah at M acon (Pl. 87);
iii) an inscription at H am m ath Tiberias and H am m ath G ader (fig. 7a, b). At Beth
5Alpha an inscription is flanked by a lion and a bull (fig. 7c);
iv) a hum an figure in the Daniel scene at N acaran (fig. I X .34), and probably also
at Susiya.
O n the lion stone from cEn Samsam a lion and lioness suckling her cub flank a
hum an figure (Pl. 88). Two of the Beth Shecarim sarcophagi depict lions flanking
a bull’s head, as on both sides of the “ Eagles” sarcophagus (fig. 6b, c). A nother
similar scene of a lion and lioness flanking a bull’s head is rendered on the “ Shell”
sarcophagus (fig. 6d) (also Avigad 1976: 142, Pl. X L IIIA ). A lion and lioness flank
a gazelle on the narrow side of the “ Shell” sarcophagus (Avigad 1976: Pl. X L III:2).
O n a stone plaque (Goodenough 1953 III: fig. 44), are carved two heraldic fighting
lions with a bird perched on each back. (PL 89b). Avigad (1976: 140) proposes that
the flanking lions m otif originates in decorative funerary art.
322 JEW ISH ART A N D ARCH AEOLOGY IN LATE A N TIQ UITY
b) The most prevalent and im portant depiction is that of lions flanking a T orah
shrine and becoming an integral part of its structure, for instance, as ornam entation
on an aedicula lintel (N abratein) or as three-dim ensional lion sculptures which
presum ably flanked the T orah shrine.
Several lion reliefs probably belong to T orah shrine ornam entation:
i) The cEn Samsam stone from the Golan m ay have been the base of the side wall
of an aedicula (fig. IX .24b). This stone is probably from the cEn Neshut synagogue
(Pis. 26, 88, and p. 184; M aoz 1981b: 112). Its front extrem ity takes the shape of a
MOTIFS OF JEW ISH ART 323
7a‫־‬c. Lions F lanking Inscriptions.
three-dim ensional torso of a lion; on one side of the stone a carved scene depicts a
lion and lioness suckling her cub flanking a figure (PL 88). A nother relief of a
lioness, with only her head carved three-dimensionally, similar to the front end of
the cEn Samsam stone, was found at cEn Neshut. In U m m el‫־‬K anatir two lion
reliefs, each with a three-dimensional head, m ay have belonged to the side of an
aedicula (figs. 8, 9) (KW , 1916: 259, 272, reconstructs these lions flanking the upper
window in the synagogue facade). An aedicula lintel, found at N abratein (fig.
V III. 18 and Pl. 24) depicts a pair of carved ram pant lions facing each other (M eyers
et al. 1981a). A similar rendering of lions is carved on a lintel from R aphid (fig.
IX .30a). A relief from Z um im ra renders a lion beside a pilaster (PL 35) which may
have been part of an aedicula decoration. A representation of a lion decorating a
T orah shrine can be seen in a carving on a catacomb wall at Beth Shecarim (PL31).
324 JEW ISH ART A ND ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE A N TIQ UITY M OTIFS OF JEW ISH ART 325

C apernaum lions may have flanked the facade of the synagogue as acroteria. Note
ii) Several examples of three-dim ensional sculptures of lions have survived: a torso also the lion found at M ishrafawi in the Golan; a carved basalt three dimensional
of a lion in profile from C horazin, a fragm ent from C apernaum , and a head from lion, missing its lower part, has its right side covered with stylized geometric decora­
the Barcam synagogue (figs. 10, 11). Sukenik (1949: 21, fig. 5) proposes that the tion (PI. 92).
326 JEW ISH ART A ND ARCH AEO LOG Y IN LATE ANTIQ UITY
01 1---- ·---- »---- 1---- 1---- 1---- 1---- *---- 11M
14. “ A canthus B ” Sarcophagus, Beth Sh ecarim
c) The lion is also encountered as a single m otif decorating friezes, lintels, or sar­
cophagi:
i) Lions carved in stone, on friezes and reliefs come mostly from Golan
synagogues, such as U m m el‫־‬K anatir (figs. 8,9) and cEn Neshut (fig. 12). U n ­
published lion reliefs come from Beth Lavi, Kasabieh (here, a lioness who suckles
her cub has a face similar to that seen on the H . cA m m udim lintel), and M isracat
MOTIFS OF JEW ISH ART 327
K anef (all of these now on exhibition in the K azrin m useum ). M utilated lions are
carved on two frieze fragm ents from C horazin (Goodenough 1953, III: figs. 492,
494) and C apernaum (Orfali 1922: fig. 80, p. 47).
ii) Lions em erging from leaf patterns and acanthus are carved on a lintel from
R ehov (fig. 13), on “ A canthus” sarcophagus A (fig. 14) and at C apernaum (Orfali
1922: 39, 47). In one case, on the lintel from Safed, a lion head (probably a mask)
is carved inside a wreath (fig. V III.46a).
iii) Lions are shown in hunting scenes, in the G erasa mosaic (fig. I X .33), and on
the Beth Shecarim “ H u n t” sarcophagus (fig. 15).
iv) A lion is depicted listening to K ing D avid’s music in the G aza mosaic pave­
m ent (Pis. 66, 67).
v) Lions appear on the zodiac panel representing the Leo sign in H am m ath
Tiberias, Beth 3Alpha and N acaran (figs. IX 39a, 40 and Pl. 80b).
d) Lionesses are encountered in heraldic scenes where they are shown either facing
a lion, or standing alone. T he popularity of the lioness in Jew ish art should be noted.
A lioness is depicted in heraldic scenes as the lion’s m ate on the “ Lions” and
“ Shell” sarcophagi from Beth Shecarim (fig. 6). A lioness is included on the Gerasa
mosaic border (fig. I X .33). Popular is the m otif of a lioness suckling her cub, en­
countered on carved basalt stones, such as the m utilated C horazin frieze fragm ent
(Goodenough 1953, III: fig. 492), the carved stone from cEn Sam sam which depicts
a lioness and her cub flanking a figure (Pl. 88), and an unpublished basalt fragm ent
from Kasabieh in the Golan. O n the G aza mosaic pavem ent a lioness suckling her
cub is portrayed (Pl. 86a).
Depictions of lions are portrayed both in stylized and detailed m anners (Avi-
Yonah 1981a:53-54). Stylization is achieved by two methods: 1) By the adoption of
a selected pose, the most common O riental pose, that is, body in profile with head
and face turned toward the spectator (examples come from cA m m udim and
Kasabieh, fig. 4a). M any lions are depicted in the Assyrian convention of the left
and right limbs m oving simultaneously (cA m m udim , H am m ath G ader, Beth
3Alpha, Beth Shecarim (figs. 4a, 7, and Pl. 102). 2) By the m ethod of showing the
details of the lion’s body covered by a pattern. The carved m ane is depicted
schematically in a pattern of curls in regular groups of rows (Chorazin, B arcam, cEn
Sam sam , figs. 10, 11 and Pl. 88). M ane and ribs are depicted in carved parallel lines
on the Beth Shecarim “ L ions” and “ Eagle” sarcophagi and the carved lion from
M ishrafawi (fig. 6 and Pl. 92). The N abratein relief lion has his m ane rendered in
curls (Goodenough 1953, III: fig. 523). T he style of the cEn Samsam carving (Pl.
88) is unusual: the lions have proportionally very small heads, large bodies and
paws, long tails, and m anes portrayed by several carved lines.
328 JEW ISH ART AND ARCH AEOLOGY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY MOTIFS OF JEW ISH ART 329

M ost of the lions are depicted with their tails in an upcurving posture. Exceptions
are the left-hand lion at N acaran whose tail is held down (fig. IX , 34), the left-hand
lion on the cEn Samsam relief (Pl. 88) and the lioness on the relief of cEn Neshut
(fig· 12).
The lion in all its various portrayals is an im portant m otif in the repertoire of
Jew ish art. A m otif evolved from ancient O riental art is that of the lion flanking
various objects such as the common representation of lions subduing bulls, also
prevalent in Hellenistic tombs. There, the lion symbolically signifies death claiming
its victim (Avigad 1976: 140). A similar m otif of lions flanking a bull’s head m ay
have been a stylized version of this same m otif (Avigad 1976: 142). Avi-Yonah
(1960a: 23; 1960b: 30 note 19) contends that the lion is the symbol of Ju d a h , the
guardian and protector. This m ay explain the significance of lions flanking the
T orah Ark in Beth 5Alpha (Pl. 102), and the m enorah at M acon (Pl. 87), as well
as gold glasses from Jew ish catacombs in Rom e (fig. I X .9). Possibly the lions flank­
ing inscriptions at H am m ath Tiberias, H am m ath G ader and Beth 5Alpha (fig. 7)
have the same significance as protectors (Goodenough, 1958, V II: 29-37, 78-86,
proposes that the lion is m eant as a protector and indicates “ the ferocious but saving
power of the God of the T o ra h ” ).
Lions flanking Jewish symbols such as the m enorah or the T orah shrine m ay have
had significance beyond their decorative function, a significance in w h i c h the at­
tributions of guardian and protector are attached to the lions.

16. B u ll’s H ead on the “ E agle” Sarcophagus,

The Bull
T he bull appears in both synagogal and funerary art as an independent anim al
m otif or as a bull’s head.
a) A bull as a flanking anim al is often paired with a lion (Beth 5Alpha, fig. 7c).
A bull is portrayed in the upper right medallion of the Beth She5an B synagogue (fig.
I X .42). O n zodiac panels, the bull is encountered at Beth 5Alpha, N acaran and
H am m ath Tiberias (Pl. 79).
b) A further m otif consists of the head of a bull, under a lion’s paws, as on the
cA m m udim lintel (fig. 4a) and the Tiberias lintel (Pl. 91) or between flanking lions,
as on the Beth Shecarim “ Eagle” and “ Shell” sarcophagi (fig. 6). Avigad (1976:
141) m aintains that the lion laying his paw on a bull’s head evolved into an abstract
m otif from a prototype anim al chase motif.
c) A bull’s head is used as an independent m otif in the “ Eagle” and “ Bull” sar­
cophagi at Beth Shecarim (fig. 16).
Beth Shecarim.
The bucranium is depicted in heraldic fashion flanking a wreath on a lintel from
Safsaf (fig. V III.5 le). A lintel from 5A hm adieh (Golan) which was drawn by
Schum acher has a bull’s head on its side. (M aoz (1981b: 111, note 1) reports lintels
from A hm adieh and Kasabieh which portray bulls’ heads flanking eagles.) The ar­
tists who portrayed bulls emphasized their heaviness in the usual O riental fashion
which stressed anim al qualities (Avi-Yonah 1981a: 63). The bull is a lunar symbol
in pagan art, and in Syrian and N abatean art it is associated with H adad or Ju p iter
H eliopolitanus (Avi-Yonah 1981a: 65, see the symbolic association of the bull il­
lum inating the hope of im m ortality in Goodenough V II, 1958: 1-28). The ap­
pearance of the bull in Jew ish synagogal and funerary art is without these pagan
symbolisms, and was probably a m otif in a pattern book used as a decorative design.
330 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLO G Y IN LATE ANTIQ UITY

Horned Animals
A popular m otif on mosaic pavem ents of both synagogues and churches consists
of horned animals flanking objects such as vases and trees. T he Beth She^an B
synagogue inhabited scroll pavem ent depicts goats flanking a vase (PI. 85). At
N acaran a repaired panel at the entrance of the nave mosaic pavem ent depicts two
unidentical stags facing each other am ong flowers (fig. 17). Sheep flank the T orah
shrine panel on the Susiya mosaic pavem ent (PI. 104—the flower behind the sheep
is similar to the N acaran flowers behind the stags). Deer also appear in anim al chase
friezes (Beth She^an B, fig. IX .42).

Fish 17. N a caran Stags M osaic.

Several fish occur in Jew ish art, in both synagogal and funerary depictions. In
Christian art the fish is a very common motif. O n Beth Shecarim sarcophagi several
fish are carved. O n the “ Shell” sarcophagus (Avigad 1976: 144, PL 43:2) five fish
of various sizes and facing various directions are depicted above the lions. Fish are
carved on some reliefs from the Golan: on the D abbura lintel a fish is carved in pro­
file beside an eagle (fig. 18a); another is carved on a stone (fig. 18b), two fish are
portrayed on a stone from Rafid (fig. 18a); and fish tails flank an eagle on a lintel
from 5Ahm adieh (M aoz 1980:36, as draw n by Schum acher). Fish are also portrayed
as the sign of Pisces in the zodiac mosaics (Pl. 82c). A fish is depicted in the border
of the Beth 5Alpha mosaic pavem ent (fig. 33a).
\ ^ '‫׳‬
18. a)R aphid fishes; b) A fish carved on stone from D abbura.
Dolphins
Dolphins are portrayed in heraldic fashion, flanking a w reath, in a similar m anner 100 CIA
on two sarcophagi: on the narrow side of the “ M enorah” and the “ N ikae” sar­
cophagi (fig. 19). The mosaic floor in front of Beth Shecarim catacomb 11 depicts
four dolphins which fill the corners of a square (Goodenough 1953: figs. 84-85). O n
the Ja p h ica mosaic floor, dolphins fill the space between the circles of the tribal sym­
bols (fig. IX .35b). Dolphins are a widespread m otif in Greek and R om an art. They
are also popular in N abatean reliefs.
Scholars are divided as to the m eaning of the fish and dolphin depictions.
Goodenough (1956, V: 11) m aintains that the fish is a sacred or magical symbol.
T he dolphin, he contends (ibid: 26) in pagan art suggests the loving concern of the
deity to bring one into a happy life after death. The Jew s, Goodenough proposes
(1956, V: 27) see the dolphin as “ a symbol of hope for themselves and their loved
ones” and m ay have called it Leviathan\ one explanation of a Talm udic reference is

19. D olphins, Flanking a Wreath on: a) “ M enorah” Sarcophagus; b) “ N ikae” Sarcophagus.

332 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLO G Y IN LATE ANTIQ UITY
20. a)Lintel Soffit, G ush H alav; b) D abbura Lintel Fragm ent.
that the dolphin represents fertility. Fish and dolphins symbolize the sea (Avigad
1976: 149) and could be also apotropaic. They are employed as decorative motifs,
especially for filling em pty spaces, and are probably taken from patterns in sketch
books of motifs used in antiquity.
Eagle
The eagle is a well known m otif in ancient art and is prevalent in Jew ish art,
decorating different artefacts: lintels, windows, T orah shrines, as well as various ex­
amples of funerary art.
Aa) In synagogal art the eagle is encountered on synagogue lintels as the central
figure, or two eagles are shown facing each other and flanking a wreath.
i) An eagle as the central figure is carved on the C apernaum lintel (fig. V III.46),
now nearly obliterated. An eagle and garlands are seen on the lintel soffit of Gush
H alav (fig. 2 0 a ) and oh the soffit of the central lintel of the R om an tem ple at Kadesh
in the Galilee. Two lintel fragm ents from D abbura (Golan) depict eagles glancing
aside. O ne fragm ent is m ade in shallow relief (fig. 20b), and the other is richly
carved, stylized, and depicts an eagle holding a wreath in his beak (fig. 20c). Two
lintel fragm ents draw n by Schum acher depict eagles. A lintel with an eagle is
reported from H . W eradim (H üttenm eister 1977: 477), and M aoz reports (1981b:
111) a lintel from Kasbieh which depicts a eagle flanked by bulls’ heads.
ii) Several lintels depict eagles flanking a wreath: a lintel from Safed (fig. V III.46a)
has a naturalistic eagle and wreath fram ing a lion’s head. A lintel from Ja p h ica (fig.
V III.46d) has flanking eagles and a w reath, each separate within a metope. Two
lintels from D abbura (Golan, fig. V III.46b, c) depict short-toed eagles, one of which
holds a snake in its beak, and the other of which probably holds the end of a ribbon,
as on the Safed lintel (fig. V III, 46a).
M OTIFS OF JEW ISH ART 333
b) Eagles appear as T orah shrine ornam entation: a stylized eagle is carved on the
U m m el-K anatir double colum n (Pl. 23). The cEn Sam sam lion stone has two eagles
carved on both ends, flanking the heraldic scene of a figure and lions (Pl. 26 and
p. 322). T he eagles in both these reliefs are stylistically similar, and m ay have been
carved by the same workshop, although the capital from U m m el‫־‬K anatir is of a bet­
ter quality work.
c) Eagles are carved on the tip of the front gable in the synagogues of C horazin
(Pl. 93) and U m m el‫־‬K anatir (Golan) (Goodenough 1953, III: fig. 531). A similar
eagle is carved on fragm ents of an arch which was found at cEn Neshut (M aoz 1980:
23). Two eagles are probably carved on the m utilated key stone of the arch at C aper­
naum (Goodenough 1953, III: fig. 465).
d) A pair of back-to-back eagles holding a garland is carved on a frieze at C aper­
naum (fig. 21).
e) A stone window fragm ent from the Dikke synagogue has a small eagle carved
on the side (Pl. 94).
f) A carved eagle decorates one of the west door jam bs of the second southwest
entrance at H . Shem ca (fig. 22) (M eyers 1981a: 71).
It should be noted that all these reported reliefs depicting eagles are encountered
in the Golan and the Galilean synagogues, with the exception of the one found in
Ja p h ica.
Ba) In funerary art, eagles appear on the “ E agle,” “ Shell,” and “ G able” sar­
cophagi of Beth Shecarim (fig. 23a) (Avigad 1976: 141, 142, Pis. X L II:2, X L I:1)
above garlands on the sarcophagus lid and on one of the narrow sides,
b) An eagle is carved at the centre of the top of the arch of the facade of the
m ausoleum at Beth Shecarim (fig. 23b).
T he eagles depicted in Jew ish art are rendered according to O riental stylization
(Avi-Yonah 1981a: 56-59). Carved in an inveterate pose, with its body turned
towards the spectator, the eagle’s head is turned aside, the wings are spread and the
legs stay apart. The body, wings and upper part of the legs are patterned by either
cross-hatching or carved dots so that the body features become a geometric pattern.
Only the two Safed eagles are m ore naturalistically depicted (fig. V III.46a). O n
mosaic floors, the eagle is depicted only once—on the M a con inhabited scroll mosaic
pavem ent (fig. 24). H ere the eagle is rendered in frontal pose, its head turned
towards the left, wings spread and legs apart. A ring with a bulla hangs around its
neck. Similar eagles are depicted on other mosaic pavem ents (Avi-Yonah 1960b: 26
and note 4).
The eagle is an O riental religious symbol, a well-known astral and solar symbol
depicted on m any pagan m onum ents. In the synagogue adornm ent the eagle m otif
334 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLO G Y IN LATE ANTIQ UITY
21. C apernaum Frieze.
22. A n Eagle on the H . Sh em ca Syn agogue, W est Entrance.
is deprived of its religious symbolism (Avi-Yonah 1981a: 65; cf. Goodenough, 1958,
V III: 121-142, who m aintains that the eagle is a symbol of imm ortality). In pagan
tombs the eagle has symbolic connotations—it is responsible for carrying the soul
of the deceased to heaven. However in funerary art at Beth Shecarim the eagles are
simply decorative motifs (Avigad 1976: 142).
M OTIFS OF JEW ISH ART 335
24. Eagle on the M a con 23b. M ausoleum Facade, Beth Shecarim.
M osaic.
Birds
Birds comprise a widespread m otif in ancient art, and Jew ish artists commonly
use them . In fact they appear to be one of the artists’ favourite motifs (Avigad 1976:
144-145, Pis. 33:1, 2, 3; 44:4).
O n the “ Shell” sarcophagus of Beth Shecarim several birds are carved. By the
Second Tem ple period (fig. IV .21, p. 81) birds were already being used in Jew ish
art. O ne of the birds on the “ Shell” sarcophagus is very similar to a bird on the
“ G able” sarcophagus (fig. 25). [Sailer and Bagatti (1949: Pl. 28: 2) call a similar
b ird—depicted on the Lot and Procopius church mosaic pavem ent—an eagle.] Birds
are depicted in heraldic scenes, flanking a m enorah, on two lintels from Tiberias and
336 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY
25. Birds on Sarcophagi, Beth 26. Birds on M osaic, Beth Sh e‫*־‬an B.
Shecarim .
27. Birds Pecking G rapes,
“ S h ell” Sarcophagus, Beth
Shecarim.
Sarona (fig. V III.50e; Pl. 36). O n the T orah shrine panel at Beth ‫*־‬Alpha birds flank
the Ark (Pl. 102). O n three stone plaques (m irror frames) they appear flanking a
m enorah and two T orah shrines, drinking from a vase (Pl. 89), perched on the backs
of fighting lions and situated above a T orah shrine . Similar depictions occur in the
catacombs of Rom e (fig. IX 9a). A sculptured stone depicting a b ird ’s head was
found at the N abratein synagogue (M eyers et al. 1982: fig. 10a). O n the Beth She^an
B mosaic floor birds’flank an inscription and a vase (fig. 26). H ere, also, birds
depicted with ribbons around their necks fill the spaces between the medallions and
the inner row of the border of the mosaic (the outer row is filled with objects (fig.
IX .42; Pl. 85)). The same rendering of birds is encountered in the House of Leontis
(fig. I X .37; Pl. 69), which is in the same building as the synagogue. O n mosaic
pavements with inhabited scroll designs, birds fill m any of the medallions. Several
birds fill the border medallion of the Beth ‫*־‬Alpha mosaic pavem ents (fig. X I. 10),
and a bird fills one square in the border fret pattern of the M acoz H ayim mosaic
pavem ent (Pl. 95). O n the N oah’s Ark pavem ent at G erasa, a row of birds is shown
leaving the Ark (fig. I X .33). Birds are portrayed inside the octagons of a geometric
mosaic in the Susiya synagogue (G utm an et al. 1981: 126). The cEn-Gedi mosaic
pavements display groups of birds in pairs on the emblem of the m ain mosaic, and
a single bird is depicted in the centre of the small mosaic (Pl. 96a, b).
M OTIFS OF JEW ISH ART 337
The m otif of a bird pecking grapes was popular in Syrian and N abatean art
(Butler 1916, II: figs. 326, 327, 330). In Jew ish art it is found on the Beth Shecarim
“ Shell” sarcophagus, where two birds pecking grapes are carved (fig. 27). O n a
Chorazin lintel (fig. V III.52j), on the D elta lintel (Goodenough 1953, III: fig. 588),
and on two Golan lintels from K anef and cEn N eshut (fig. V III.52i) birds peck
grapes. This m otif also appears in a medallion on the Beth She‫*־‬an B synagogue
pavem ent (fig. IX .42). Depiction of birds^is usually in the O riental style. W hen
carved the body is circular in shape and is shown from the side. Stylization is
represented by patterning of body and wings (Avi-Yonah 1981a: 56-58). The bird
m otif was taken from a catalogue sketch book used by artists in antiquity (see p. 392).
Symbolic connotations and figurative significance have been conferred on the bird
m otif by several scholars. Goodenough (1958, V II: 24, 41, 42) and Avi-Yonah
(1960b: 29 note 16) m aintain that the bird is associated with the soul of the deceased
(also Hachlili 1985:123). However, birds appear in every kind of com bination, both
in heraldic fashion and as a single m otif on lintels and mosaic floors, which would
seem to rule out the idea of its symbolic significance.
Birds serve as decorative motifs taken from pattern books, filling spaces of lintels
and medallions, and are also part of symbolic Jew ish scenes portraying m enoroth
and T orah shrines.
The Bird Cage
This m otif appears on the M acon and G aza synagogues (fig. 28; Pis. 86a, 87) and
on some church inhabited scroll pavem ents (fig. IX .43), and is one of the motifs at­
tributed by Avi-Yonah (1981d: 393) to the “ Gaza school.” However, this m otif also
appears in the centre of an hexagonal medallion in the geometric “ carpet” of the
N acaran synagogue pavem ent (Pl. 100). It also occurs in some churches on carpets
such as at M adaba and G erasa, as well as Sabrath in N orth Africa and in the
synagogue at M isis-M opsuestis in Cilicia. Iconographic interpretations differ:
G rabar proposes (1966: 9-16) a symbolic m eaning for this motif, that the bird in the
cage is “ the hum an soul im prisoned in a body yearning for delivery.” Avi-Yonah
(1960b: note 16 p. 29) m aintains that the partridge in the cage is being used as a
decoy, which m ay reflect a hunting custom, possibly also attested to by the fact that
the cage is usually flanked by birds, thus indicating that this m otif is part of the
birds’ repertoire.
338 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY
28. Bird C ages, M a con and G aza.
29a,b. Peacocks, G aza and Beth
She‫*־‬an B M osaics.
Peacocks
T he peacock as a m otif usually appears either a) flanking am phorae or acanthus
issuing from a winding vine and form ing a medallion (very popular on church
pavements and also on some synagogue floors) (Avi-Yonah 1960b: 26, note 3;
D auphin 1976a: 120); or b) en face.
a) The inhabited scroll mosaic pavem ents are characterized by medallions formed
by a winding vine issuing from an am phora, situated in the lowest central medallion,
and flanked by peacocks (M acon, fig. IX , 41), and the comparable church mosaics
of Shellal and the A rm enian C hurch of Jerusalem (fig. IX .43). In the Gaza in­
habited scrolls, peacocks flank the inscription (fig. 29a; Pl. 86a). T he peacock is
rendered walking forward, its long tail folded, extending into the second medallion
(M acon, fig. I X .41) or partly protruding from the medallion (Gaza, fig. 29a; Pl.
86a). Two feathers are shown on its head. T he synagogue pavem ent of Huseifa has,
M OTIFS OF JEW ISH ART 339
in its lower, dam aged panel, a depiction of vine branches with grapes, and in its
lower rem aining corner two peacock heads face each other (fig. IX .39b). Peacocks
are also depicted in the Diaspora, on catacomb ceilings, on the D ura Europos
synagogue ceiling, and on the pavem ent of the H am m am -L if synagogue.
b) A variation of this m otif is the peacock en face with an open tail spread out
behind, depicted in the central medallion of the upper row on the Beth She^an B
pavem ent, above the m enorah medallion (fig. 29b; Pl. 85). This peacock is similar
to depictions on several mosaic pavem ents at G erasa and in Syria at Antioch and
A pam ea, as well as in N orth Africa. T he Beth SheDan B peacock is a stylized
representation of the motif.
T he significance of the peacock and its symbolism is explained by Goodenough
(1958, V III: 52-58): peacock motifs were utilized as flanking objects, having been
taken from a pattern book of heraldic sketches (p. 393); the enface peacock was prob­
ably a space filling (medallion) device only.
Animal chase friezes s
Anim al friezes including chase scenes are few and not usually represented in
Jew ish art. Scenes of hum ans hunting animals are never found. H unting and chase
scenes are usually popular in R om an and Byzantine art (see Lavin 1963). They are
also depicted during the latter part of the sixth century on mosaic floors of C hristian
churches in the Land of Israel and in surrounding areas. At Kissufim (Cohen 1980:
16) several elaborate hunting scenes (two of which depict anim al combats) are por­
trayed: a hound chasing a hare and an antelope, a lion attacking a bull, and a griffin
seizing a swan.
An anim al chase is portrayed on the Beth Shecarim m ausoleum (fig. 23b) and on
the Beth Shecarim “ H u n t” sarcophagus (fig. 15). Avigad proposes (1976: 141) that
this scene of a lion chasing a gazelle is a later addition at the request of a customer.
Anim al chase scenes are depicted in anim al frieze borders of mosaic pavements of
the Beth She^an B small synagogue and the G erasa synagogue. The anim al frieze
at Beth She^an B is shown issuing from four corner vases, and includes chase scenes
of a dog chasing a hare, and what seems to be a bear chasing a deer; in both cases
the hunting beast catches its victim by the legs (fig. I X .42). (See also the crocodile
catching a cow on the pavem ent in the House of Leontis (fig. I X .37; Pl. 68).) At
G erasa the beasts are depicted chasing after their victims (Avi-Yonah, 1981a: 7,
m aintains that Assyrian friezes influence the art of the R om an period). O n the G aza
inhabited scroll pavem ent several hunting scenes occur (Pl. 86): a tigress chases a
donkey in row three; dogs chase a deer in row seven, and in row nine two leopards
340 JEW ISH ART AND ARCH AEOLOGY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY MOTIFS OF JEW ISH ART 341

chase a horse. Although each of the animals is rendered in a separate medallion, the
scene is lively, naturalistic, and full of m ovem ent. It is very interesting to note that
the elephant and buffalo seldom appear on mosaic floors in antiquity; they do ap­
pear, though, in the synagogues with inhabited scroll pavem ents, M acon and Beth
She^an B (figs. I X .41, 42); the buffalo m ay also appear at N acaran.

D) T he H um an F ig u r e M o t if s

The O riental artist portrayed hum an figures in a stylized m anner: each part of
the body was considered as a discrete element; body proportions were disregarded;
and each limb was rendered separately.
a) O n carved reliefs (lintels and friezes) hum an figures are portrayed (Avi-Yonah
1981a: 8-9, 26-31). All the carved figures exhibit the characteristic conventions of
O riental art: a head exaggerated in size, body and face portrayed enface, legs in pro­
file, arms attached unnaturally to the body, and few details depicted. The reliefs are
flatly, schematically and crudely carved.
O n the Beth Shecarim “ C olum n” sarcophagus a hum an figure and a dog are por­
trayed (fig. 30). Avigad (1976: 155) proposes that these represent a mythological
hunting scene. The C horazin frieze (PI. 47), although m utilated, clearly shows four | 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1
0 1M
vine medallions, one filled with a figure with a staff, and three vintage scenes which
each depict a pair of figures either holding or picking grapes; the third couple from 30. “ C o lu m n ” Sarcophagus,
the left treads grapes. T he cEn Samsam stone depicts a crudely carved figure in the Beth Shecarim .

centre, flanked by lions and eagles (PI. 26). Its head is disproportionately small, as
are the anim al heads, and its left hand is disproportionately large. A relief from D ab­
b ura depicts a crudely stylized figure holding objects in its hands (PI. 98).
Another m otif depicting hum an figures consists of the Nikae, flying winged V ic­
tories, portrayed flanking a wreath on lintels and on a sarcophagus (figs. 1; V III.45;
p. 205). The Nikae are carved en face, wings spread out behind, and feet in pro­
file. They are rendered angularly, with faces depicted schematically and hands
holding wreaths. The uniform ity of their portrayal on the lintels of R am a and Dikke
(fig. V III.45), and on the Beth Shecarim sarcophagus (fig. 1) (and probably also on
the Barcam lintels) proves that this m otif m ust have existed in a pattern book (see
p. 393). They are identical in form to similar pagan motifs, but are completely
different in m eaning. The Victories in Jew ish art m ay have been associated with
angels or cherubim (Avigad 1976: 285), or, as Avi-Yonah m aintains (1973: 127)
m ay have represented the trium ph of the faith, evoked by the T rium ph of the
Em peror as depicted on R om an arches.
The Beth Shecarim cemetery yields another im portant relief which represents a
carved figure in m ilitary dress, supporting a m enorah on its head (fig. 31a). Several
other figures, including horsem en fighting gladiators (fig. 31b, c), are carved or in­
cised on some of the catacomb walls here (M azar 1973: Pis. X IV :2; X V :2;
X X IX :5)). A bearded head is crudely carved on the “ M ask” sarcophagus (fig. 32).
T he hair is curly and the eyes expressive. Avigad (1976: 146-147) asserts that a head
on an im ported coffin was used as a model. O n a stone plaque (m irror frame) (PI.
89a) two figures are represented, one with raised arm s (below the top gable), and
the other, a carved female bust, with jewellery around its neck and what seems to
be a bird held in one hand. A bust is also carved on the B arcam stone relief (fig. 3).
b) M osaic floors portray several hum an figures, in the Biblical scenes and zodiac
panels. O n the zodiac panel, hum an figures and protom es are used for depicting the
seasons, the signs of the zodiac and the sun god. The four season protom es in H am -
m ath Tiberias (Pis. 83, 84) have exactly the same face, differing only in clothing,
 JEW ISH ART A ND ARCHAEO LO GY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY
31. Beth Shecarim R e lie f and
Graffiti: a) Figure with m enorah
on its head; b) Rider; c) M an and
horse.
32. H ead on “ M a sk ” Sar­
cophagus, Befh Shecarim.
M OTIFS OF JEW ISH ART 343
hair style and attributes, as do the figures in Beth 5Alpha (Pis. 83, 84). The per­
sonification of the seasons is a frequent m otif in ancient art (see Hachlili 1977: 69-72
and p. 307-308). Signs of the zodiac which depict hum an figures are Gem ini, Virgo,
Libra, Sagittarius and A quarius (Pis. 79, 81, 82). The H am m ath Tiberias zodiac (Pl.
71) is depicted in a Hellenistic-naturalistic style: the bodies are rendered in natural
postures, the head turned freely to the side, the faces contain expression, the folds
of the dress falling naturally and the jewellery representative of the fashion of the
period. By comparison, the unique Beth 5Alpha mosaic with its zodiac and Biblical
scenes renders the figures according to the O riental perception (Pl. 73; fig. I X .31):
the bodies are shown in front view, the legs and feet in profile, the face round, the
eyes enlarged, the hair not shown as an intrinsic part of the head which is large in
proportion to the body, the arm s shown sideways and attached unnaturally to the
bodies (Avi-Yonah 1981a: 34-35). T here is no difference in the portrayals of m en,
women or youths.
K ing David in G aza (Pis. 66, 67) is shown in a conventional depiction of Orpheus
stylized as a Byzantine em peror; David in M arous is shown as a Byzantine warrior.
A hum an head is depicted on the Ja p h ica mosaic (fig. IX .35b) where it is used purely
as a decorative and stylized motif. In the House of Leontis several figures are
depicted: Odysseus, the Sirens and a personification of the Nile (fig. I X .37; Pis. 68,
70). The hum an figures are similar to the figures depicted in room L of the Beth
She5an Christian m onastery of the sixth century (p. 390). They have the same face
and hair, all glance sideways, and all are portrayed in quite naturalistic postures
which convey their actions.
It is im portant to call attention to the phenom enon that the inhabited scrolls or
geometric sections in synagogue pavem ents never contain any hum an images,
although hum an figures appear on the same pavem ents but in other panels in the
contexts of Biblical scenes and zodiacs (see N acaran, or the nave floor at Gaza, fig.
X I . l l ; Pl. 86). D uring the same period, inhabited scroll church pavem ents depict
hum ans, although most of the so-called “ G aza school” pavements do not depict
hum an figures.
T he hum an figure is one of the best examples of the O riental conception in Jew ish
art, and represents some of the characteristic elements of O riental art of the period
(see p. 367). Avi-Yonah (1981a:9) m aintains that this “ can be perhaps explained by
the predom inantly religious character of O riental art and its consequent conser­
vatism .”
344 JEW ISH ART AND ARCH AEOLOGY IN LATE A N TIQ UITY MOTIFS OF JEW ISH ART 345

E) M y t h o l o g ic a l M o t if s

Few examples of mythological motifs occur in synagogue ornam entation. Several

carved motifs, sea goats, centaurs and m edusa heads are encountered:

Sea Goats
A sea goat is depicted on a frieze fragm ent from C apernaum (fig. 21).

Centaurs
A C apernaum lintel has carved on it what are considered to be centaurs, now
m utilated (fig. V III.48b). Several centaurs are depicted on the frieze fragm ents at
C horazin (Goodenough 1953, III: figs. 489, 494, 497). O n a stone fragm ent from
B arcam (fig. 3) a centaur is depicted on its lower left edge.

Medusa
A m edusa head is encountered on a Chorazin frieze fragm ent (Pl. 46).
Goodenough (1953, I: 217) contends that the Ja p h ica head is also of a m edusa (fig.
IX , 35b).

The mosaic floor in the House of Leontis at Beth She3an portrays mythological
scenes of Odysseus and Nilotic scenes (fig. I X .37, p. 301) copied from Hellenistic
pagan art. Goodenough (1958, V III: 115-116; 1968, X II: 148) contends that
mythological motifs symbolize mystical and eschatological hopes in Judaism , as well 33a‫־‬c. G enre Scenes. a,b. Beth 3A lpha M osaic, c. M a con M osaic.
as signifying imm ortality. However, it seems m ore probable that these mythological
images, borrowed from pagan art, are being used often as decorative patterns which
have lost their symbolic content; these representations were simply copied from p at­
tern books. Also, some of the mythological motifs penetrated into Jew ish imagery Two m ore hum orous and realistic genre subjects are depicted on synagogue
through the influence of M idrashic literature (Breslavi 1967: 120-129). mosaic floors:
c) A hen strutting along with her four chicks behind her, in the Beth 3Alpha lozenge
m edallion in the border (fig. 33a).
F) G enre M o t if s
d) In the centre of the eighth row of the M a con synagogue mosaic pavem ent, a hen
Only few genre motifs are depicted in synagogue reliefs and pavements: lays an egg into a water vessel (fig. 33c).
a) The vintage scene of the C horazin frieze (Pl. 47) is a carved frieze of vine scrolls These last three motifs are unique, and m ay represent the various artists’ own in­
within which three vintage scenes are depicted. This is the only such scene in Jew ish itiative and imaginative contribution to these mosaic floors. These refreshing in­
art, whereas in Christian art it appears regularly on mosaic floors in churches and novations contrast sharply with the conventional motifs taken from pattern books
monasteries. and used m any times.
b) A figure holding a goose is depicted in one of the medallions in the single running
border of the Beth 3Alpha mosaic pavem ent (fig. 33b). This m otif is unique.
346 JEW ISH ART AND ARCH AEOLOGY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY
T he motifs most frequently encountered in Jew ish art are those of the lion, the
eagle and the bull. These anim al motifs appear both on sculpture and in mosaics,
where they are usually depicted in a prom inent position. The following com m entary
m ay explain part of the reason for the prom inence of these particular motifs:
Midrash Rabba. Exodus 23, 13:
R. Abin said: four kinds of exalted beings have been created in the world. The most
exalted of all living creatures is man; of birds, the eagle; of cattle the ox; and of wild
beasts, the lion. All of these received royalty and had greatness bestowed upon them,
and they set under the chariot of God as... This is the meaning of “ For he is highly
exalted.
These prom inent anim al images in Jew ish art, although they were sometimes
transferred from pagan art, lost their pagan m eaning and acquired new values by
the influence of Biblical and M idrashic literature.
CH APTER ELEVEN
C O M P O S IT IO N AN D STY LE
A) M o s a ic F loor C o m p o s it io n a n d S tyle
Between the fourth and seventh centuries synagogue adornm ent is concentrated
entirely in the interior of the building; the exterior is left unornam ented. Because
of this innovation, the floor of the synagogue becomes an im portant location for
elaborate decorations. Each floor is planned as one fram ed unit but is divided
geometrically into panels or medallions. Principles of depth and perspective are ig­
nored. Like the changes in the Byzantine mosaic pavem ents, a m arked evolution of
style occurred in synagogue mosaics during this period (Avi-Yonah 1975: 41).
The surface of the synagogue floor which is exploited for adornm ent is term ed the
field. This field is divided into smaller areas which correspond to the structural en­
tities such as the nave and aisle. The aisle is usually paved with one complete carpet
(which is one particular design unit), for instance like that in the eastern aisle at
H am m ath Tiberias (fig. 1),, or with various carpets, for instance at Beth 5Alpha (fig.
3). These aisle carpets are usually geometric. The most im portant and outstanding
designs always appear on the nave carpets; m oreover, they are always clearly and
intentionally separated from the aisles by ornate, elaborately decorated borders (see
H am m ath Tiberias, Beth 5Alpha, Beth She5an A, N acaran, Jericho, H am m ath
G ader (figs. 1-4, V I I I.7) and Huseifa (fig. 5).
T hree distinctive systematic schemes of nave carpet design can be recognized:
Scheme A, which is the most common and is found on several synagogue floors,
has a field which is divided into three rectangular carpets, each thematically distinct
and appropriate to its position in the construction. A fram e encloses each panel (fig.
6) (H am m ath Tiberias, Beth 5Alpha, Beth She5an A, Huseifa, H am m ath G ader,
probably Ja p h ica, N acaran, and Susiya, figs. 1-5; V III.6, 7; IX .35a).
Scheme B has a field of an even and harm onious design paved on the complete
nave floor—inhabited scroll carpets (fig. 7). This carpet was in vogue during the
sixth century both in synagogues and churches (see Avi-Yonah 1960b: 31). (See the
synagogues of Beth She5an B, Gaza and M a con (figs. 7; IX .41, 42; Pis. 85-87).)
Scheme C consists of a geometric carpet design with an emblem as the central
focus (fig. 8). It sometimes also appears on church floors (see cE n‫־‬Gedi and Jericho,
PI. 96 and fig. 13 ). It sometimes also appears on church floors.
348 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEO LOG Y IN LATE ANTIQ UITY COM PO SITIO N AN D STYLE

1. General· Plan o f H am m ath T iberias B.

These three designs avoid free composition and also portray several typical char­
acteristics of O riental art: first, the principle of horror vacui, second, representations
are depicted by the conceptual m ethod instead of in the visual illusionistic Graeco-
R om an m anner (Avi-Yonah 1960a: 20-21; 1975: 41) (pp. 366-367). Compositions
include figurative art, and iconic and mythological themes which are depicted in sec­
tions, rhythmically and antithetically united.

2. General Plan of Beth SheDan A.

350 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY COM PO SITIO N A ND STYLE 351

3. General Plan of Beth 3Alpha.

4. General Plan of N acaran.

352 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY CO M PO SITIO N A N D STYLE 353

HUSEIFA

5. G eneral Plan o f H useifa.

Scheme A Carpets
This carpet is usually divided into three panels (fig. 6) in a recurring design and
them e which is repeated on different synagogue floors, for instance at H am m ath
Tiberias, Beth 5Alpha, N acaran, Susiya, and Beth She5an A (figs. 2, 6; 9-11;
V III,6). The panels in scheme A are divided into: 1) a Jew ish symbols panel which
is situated in front of the T orah shrine; 2) a middle panel with a zodiac scheme; and
3) a panel with a Biblical scene: at Beth 5Alpha it is the first panel close to the en­
trance (fig. 10) and at N acaran this is situated between the zodiac and Jew ish sym­
bols panels (fig. 11). The third panel at H am m ath Tiberias has a depiction of
heraldic lions guarding an inscription, whereas in N acaran and Susiya the third
panel shows a geometric carpet (figs. 9, 11; V III.6). The Susiya pavem ent, which
is only partly preserved, is slightly different, m ainly because of an additional panel
depicting Jew ish symbols located in front of the T orah shrine (fig. V III. 6). A radical ever, are inserted into the original panels. O ther synagogue pavements are divided
change in attitudes towards figurative art during the sixth century is the cause of the into less than three panels, for example, Huseifa (fig. 5), which has two panels in
redesign and restoration of the pavem ents at Beth She5an A and Susiya (fig. 2, Pis. the nave, a similar zodiac scheme and a vine-branch panel. Incorporated into the
75, 104). Zodiac and Biblical panels are replaced by geometric designs which, how- wide and ornate border in front of the m ain entrance is a heraldic panel of Jewish
356 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY COM PO SITIO N AND STYLE 357

9. Nave M osaic, Hammath Tiberias B. 10. Nave Mosaic, Beth DAlpha.

358 JEW ISH ART AND ARCH AEOLOGY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY COM PO SITIO N A ND STYLE 359

12. N ave M osaic, H am m ath Gader.

The three schemes of design have chronological significance. Scheme A is the

most common and popular design on synagogue floors, beginning already in the
fourth century synagogue of H am m ath Tiberias, and continuing through the fifth
and sixth centuries. Scheme B is common in the sixth century, appearing also on
church floors. Scheme C is the preferred design during the latter part of the sixth
century, probably after figurative art was forbidden on synagogue floors.
The most rem arkable element of the synagogue pavem ent field is its division into
three: for example, Scheme A carpets are divided into three panels; panels themselves
consist of three elements: a central design with antithetical designs flanking it (fig.

11. Nave M osaic, N acaran.

360 JEW ISH ART AND ARCH AEOLOGY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY COM PO SITIO N A ND STYLE 361

6); inscription panels are divided into the inscription which is flanked by antithetical
objects or animals (fig. 14); panels are sometimes divided narratively into three
events, for example Isaac’s Sacrifice at Beth 5Alpha (fig. I X .31); the zodiac panel
is always divided into three constituents: a square enclosing an outer and inner circle
(figs. IX . 39-40); the N oah’s Ark panel at G erasa is divided into three horizontal
rows of animals (fig. IX .33a); Scheme B design is also divided into three parts: a
central column flanked by antithetical columns (fig. 7). This division into three is
m ainly a result of a tendency towards and preference for symmetry and heraldic p at­
terns, which are traditional O riental elements (Avi-Yonah 1981a: 48, 114). A totally
organized and systematic composition results in a harm onious, rhythm ic and
aesthetic design.
A further useful way of categorizing field organization of synagogue mosaic floors
is by analysis of the different types of panels. Each panel contains a composition ap­
propriate both thematically and functionally.
T he following panels will be discussed:
1) The Jew ish symbols panel.
2) The panel depicting inscriptions flanked by figurative or symbolic elements.
3) Panels depicting Biblical scenes.
4) T he zodiac panel prom inent in the synagogue pavem ent arrangem ents (dis­
cussed on p. 305).
1) The most prom inent panel is that containing Jew ish ritual symbols which are
depicted on the upper panel of the mosaic floors of five synagogues (fig. IX .8),
H am m ath Tiberias (PI. 101), Beth 5Alpha (PI. 102), Beth She5an A (PI. 103),
N acaran (PI. 105) and Susiya (PI. 104), and which is situated near the apse or niche
which probably contained these same objects of synagogue cult.
T he panel is composed of a symbolic, antithetic design, symmetrically arranged:
a pair of m enoroth flank a T orah shrine, each m enorah in turn being flanked by four
ritual objects—the lulav, ethrog, shofar and incense shovel—twice in exactly the
same form ation (Pis. 101-104). In Beth She5an A, only two of the ritual objects—the
shofar and the incense shovel—are depicted flanking the m enorah (PI. 103). At
H am m ath Tiberias and Beth She5an A the m enorah and objects are depicted twice
in the same attitude on either side of the T orah shrine, and do not face each other.
T he N acaran panel is different in that two hanging lamps are suspended from either
side of each m enorah (PI. 105). Similar objects suspended from the T orah shrine
gable are depicted in Beth 5Alpha and Beth She5an A (fig. IX . 19, p. 271).
X^S)7) '12*1 , ?Î7" ^ V? < 1
n ^ ftnr T he composition of these panels is generally very similar, suggesting that they
v .t
" ‫·■־‬Ct/ ‫ ״‬n T?TCLjn y r
derive from a common pattern. The style of each mosaic pavem ent, however, is
completely different as each synagogue’s artist added to and changed the basic pat-

13. Nave Mosaic, Jericho.

362 JEW ISH ART A ND ARCHAEO LO GY IN LATE A N TIQ UITY COM PO SITIO N A N D STYLE

tern. Beth 5Alpha has the most elaborate additional images, its m enoroth, animals
and objects being symmetrical but not identical (see p. 377). |M g N * C *SO M E
f e r o n s now yv»
zuM or
EVXOMC

This same design is also portrayed on other objects, for instance, on four drawings i M c c n o i *CNOUR
J h r n w h DWCKN
NOCEmiH
CEM2HCH
at Beth Shecarim (fig. I X .7); and on a limestone plaque (El. 34) a T orah shrine is ItoVAAOC mumi» K%VMKO
JnroNcmi vuavAarta CEftoflE
jENBtnMii MlOitfNTO NOCMOtH
rendered flanked by two m enoroth, without ritual objects. O n a lintel from Kochav CEMUCH
L lH I M ll M u ru u u n r u z m j
H aY arden and on a limestone plaque, a m enorah is flanked by two T orah shrines ‫ ׳ · ' ׳‬OONJ U fV N m i M1MOUJ)
‫ ־‬ri.ua-13
TA3J
(figs. V III.27; PI. 89). This design also occurs in the Diaspora, in catacomb draw ­
ings and on gold glasses (fig. I X .9). Regularly used for mosaic floors, this panel was
one of the designs appearing in the Jew ish pattern book (p. 394). Furtherm ore, its
proxim ity to the T orah shrine reinforces the hypothesis that the Ark and m enoroth
were actually placed in the niche or apse of these synagogues (see for instance the
reconstruction of the Beth 5Alpha interior in Sukenik 1932: fig. 17). Synagogue
mosaics which show these objects have a twofold function, both to show the actual
use as well as to suggest the symbolic connotations. As these objects had been
previously connected to the Tem ple, they probably expressed a longing for the T em ­
ple rites and ceremonies which could be gratified by the depiction of the objects on
the synagogue floor.
2) Several mosaic panels which are m uch less comm on depict antithetic designs
of lions flanking inscriptions (fig. 14), as in H am m ath G ader and H am m ath 4
3 r
Tiberias B (figs. 6; X .7a, b). A similar panel at Beth 5Alpha depicts an inscription — O
»w/Vr/t «A*rC. <
flanked by a lion and a bull, on the panel in front of the entrance (fig. X .7c). A n­
>
v ‫׳‬£ ‫ * ־‬:,v .
<s
other panel in Huseifa portrays two m enoroth and ritual objects flanking the inscrip­
tion (fig. 5). The H am m ath G ader design is depicted on the upper panel close to
the apse, the usual place for the Ark and m enoroth panel (fig. 12). The designs of
H am m ath Tiberias and Huseifa are depicted on the third panel near the entrance
(figs. 1; 5). T he Gaza inscription flanked by peacocks (fig. 14f, PI. 86a) possibly
derives from the same pattern.
3) The composition of Biblical scenes was adapted to the shape of the panel, which
is divided into three, in rhythm ic groupings of two figures each, such as in the
sacrifice of Isaac at Beth 5Alpha (fig. I X .31); an antithetical design of Daniel flanked
by two lions at N acaran (fig. I X .34) David of G aza is also divided compositionally
into three: David sits on one side with the animals on the other side, and the lyre
in the centre (Pis. 66, 67). The panel of N oah’s Ark at G erasa is divided horizontally
into three rows of different types of animals (fig. IX .33b).
This panel composition, with its three parts, is similar in spatial conception to the
Jew ish symbol panel, which suggests that the most prevalent composition on
synagogue pavem ents is a rhythm ic, antithetic design whose emphasis lies in its cen­
tre by the m ethod of depicting flanking symmetrical objects or figures.

14a‫־‬f. Panels o f Flanked Inscriptions.

364 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLO GY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY
T he stylistic depiction of Biblical scenes shows a development from m ore or less
realistic and lifelike modelling of images to a very schematic im itation. A
chronological progression can be observed if the rendition of animals is analyzed.
For example, the N oah’s Ark mosaic of Gerasa is the closest to a realistic representa­
tion and possibly also the earliest. T he animals are depicted within a geometric com‫״‬
position which is enclosed by a fram e of beasts am ong plants, arranged in a frieze.
C onsider also the N oah’s Ark depiction at M isis-M opsuestia (presum ed synagogue
in Cilicia, T urkey—see Avi-Yonah 1981g: 186) which includes a row each of birds
and beasts surrounding the Ark (Budde 1969: Pis. 26-28, 45-49).
By comparison, the composition of the David mosaic at G aza is depicted in a
schematic and stylized m anner, probably in accordance with a contem porary p at­
tern in use. The animals however still exhibit individual expressions: the lion, for
instance, is rendered with a bowed head and submissive stance. David shows Byzan­
tine influence by his en-face posture and his style of dress.
T he Beth 3Alpha mosaic shows a local and naive portrayal of the figures, m aking
classification difficult (see comparable scenes in M isis-M opsuestia—Budde 1969: PI.
113).
B) R e l ie f a n d S culpture C o m p o s it io n a n d Style
Jew ish synagogal and funerary reliefs and sculpture are O riental in their style; this
is visible in the richness of ornam ent, and in the tendency to stylization in the de­
tailed, patterned motifs and designs. The artists show a highly skilled technique in
stone and basalt relief execution. A rchitectural decoration reveals a square, heavy,
plastic perception. The following stylistic features are worthy of note (also Avi-
Y onah 1960b: 34-36);
1) The most im portant attitude of O riental art, frontality, is a m ajor element in
synagogue and funerary sculpture. H um ans and anim als all face the spectator (Beth
Shecarim , Chorazin, cA m m udim , Rehov, figs. X .4, 13, 16, 32).
2) O rganic and natural forms are stylized to the point where they become abstract
patterns, such as happens with the acanthus leaves of the C horazin medallions (Pis.
45-47) and the laurel leaf pattern on some lintels at Barcam, G ush H alav, and
N abratein (fig. V III.43, PI. 40). Stylization of fram ed patterns which tu rn into
geometric forms is seen in the leaves of the vintage scene at Chorazin (PI. 47).
3) The deep carving produces alternating and sharply defined light and dark
areas, especially in basalt carvings, as for example at Chorazin (Pis. 45-47), and on
the U m m el-K anatir aedicula capital (PI. 23).
CO M PO SITIO N AND STYLE 365
4) A further stylistic feature is a tendency to a heavy execution at the same time
as flat relief and shallow incisions (cEn Samsam relief, Pis. 26, 88).
5) T he proportions of most of the figures in these reliefs are effected in the O rien­
tal style, with the head exaggerated in size: at Chorazin the m en in the vintage scene
and the arm ed m en have over-sized heads (PI. 47). The best example of this lack
of proportion is the cEn Samsam relief, on which both the figure and lions have
under-sized heads (PI. 26, 88).
T he composition of lintel reliefs is different to that of friezes. Lintels are generally
ornam ented in antithetic compositions, in which a central object is flanked by two
symmetrical motifs (see Barcam, cA m m udim , R am a, D abbura, Ja p h ica, figs.
V III.45a,c 46b, d; X ,4a; PI. 40), or, if the central object is a vase or wreath, it has
vine branches issuing from it (fig. V III.52, p. 212). Friezes, on the other hand, are ex­
ecuted in an overall design divided into several sections, each design consisting of
a central m otif fram ed in an acanthus leaf (see Chorazin, C apernaum , Pis. 43-47).
Exceptional compositions are the C apernaum frieze, with two eagles and sea-goat
figure (fig. X .21), and the Chorazin vintage scene (PI. 47, p. 219).
Compositions similar to those found on synagogue architecture also appear on the
m ajority of sarcophagi, as, for example, the antithetic arrangem ents at Beth
Shecarim (figs. X .6, 25).
A rchitectural decoration of the synagogue was influenced by local, N abatean and
R om an-Syrian art, which had transform ed Classical architectural elements into or­
nam ental motifs. Architectural ornam entation was also, in some ways, a continua­
tion of the art of the previous Second Tem ple period.

CH APTER TW ELVE
O R IG IN S A N D SO U R C ES O F JE W IS H A R T
A) O r ie n t a l E lem ents in J e w is h A rt
The discussion below is based on A vi-Yonah’s comprehensive research on O rien­
tal elements in the arts of the Land of Israel during the R om an and Byzantine
periods (1961b: 33-36; 1981a: 1-117).
Jew ish art is one of the best examples of an O riental art in Late Antiquity. The
essential O riental elements can be defined by reference to two conceptions. The first
conception, which dom inates the representational branch of O riental art, is expres­
sionism. This is “ a tendency to prefer a m ental, spiritual view of things as opposed
to a visual aspect [characteristic of classical a rt]” (Avi-Yonah 1981a: 35). “ The a r­
tist showed things as he felt or thought them to b e ,” he uses the “ expressionistic ele­
m ent to project the spiritual value of his subject, contrary to a realistic conception”
(Avi-Yonah 1981a: 113). This expressionistic conception is composed of a pair of
antithetic tendencies:
1) The conceptual aspect is expressed by a clarification of presentation of the sub­
ject, thus stressing its spiritual value. This can be seen in the Beth 3Alpha sacrifice
of Isaac (fig. I X .31 and PI. 64), where a spiritual view is preferred to a visual aspect.
M oreover, by representing the details of a subject schematically in an abstract
outline, the conceptual aspect of O riental expressionism is emphasized, for example,
by placing objects in full view even though they are m eant to be hidden: the hands
of figures at Beth 3Alpha (fig. I X .31 and PI. 64) are placed in front of the objects
they are supposed to be holding, in complete defiance of the laws of perspective (Avi-
Yonah 1981a: 11, 28); or by setting objects one above the other without regard for
distance (Beth 3Alpha, the House of Leontis at Beth She3an, a m enorah set above
a hum an figure as depicted at Beth Shecarim , and an eagle above a hum an head in
the Ja p h ica mosaic, figs. I X .31, 35, 37; X .31a; Pis. 64, 68-70).
2) A tendency towards emotionalism counterbalances the above conceptual aspect and
is expressed by an emphasis laid on the features of an image, an exaggeration of the
dimensions of selected features or patterns, or a stress on characteristics to express
the dom inant quality of a subject (Avi-Yonah 1981a: 15). A distinctive O riental ele­
m ent is the absence of individual characterization w hich. results in a typological
representation of hum ans (H am m ath Tiberias, Beth 3Alpha, Pis. 64, 71, 73) (Avi-
ORIGINS AND SOURCES OF JEW ISH ART 367
Y onah 1981a: 15). Emotionalism is also expressed by placing an image or m otif
within a border, and by depicting it in high relief in order to stress its im portance.
An exaggeration of the dimensions of head and eyes in sculptured hum an figures
is a further feature of emotionalism: the Nikae in Beth Shecarim and Dikke (figs.
V III.45b; X .l) , the mask with hair arranged in curls on a sarcophagus, and the
figure on the “ C olum n” sarcophagus, both from Beth Shecarim (fig. X .31, 34), the
cEn Sam sam relief (PI. 26—note here the figures’ exaggerated palms and the small
lion heads), and mask or M edusa head from C horazin (PI. 46) are all examples of
this feature. Em otionalism is also found in mosaics: all the hum an figures of the Beth
3Alpha mosaic as well as David on the G aza mosaic show this aspect. Emotionalism
is also represented by postures such as frontality, to be seen, for instance, in the vin­
tage relief of Chorazin, in, the lion pose in the N abratein aedicula lintel, on the H .
cA m m udim lintel, on the H am m ath G ader mosaic, in the Beth 3Alpha symbol
panels, and the Gaza inhabited scroll mosaic (figs. V III. 18; X .4a,7; Pis. 47, 86,
102). T he exaggerated poses of these animals express strength, speed, massiveness
and ferocity.
The second essential concept in O riental art is stylization. Avi-Yonah (1981a: 53)
defines it thus: “ Stylization is an effort to press artificially the picture of a living
being into a pattern, so that it becomes a part of a decorative design.” Stylization
is also composed of two antithetic tendencies:
1) A tendency of patterning by a symmetrical repetition of the design. Symmetrical
design is one of the most characteristic elements in ancient Jew ish art, and is por­
trayed in heraldic composition in sculpture and in mosaic; on sarcophagi from
Beth Shecarim (fig. X .6) (Avigad 1976: 139), on lintels of synagogues such as
cA m m udim (fig. X .4a), Ja p h ica (fig. V III.46d) and on others (see p. 206ff.).
T he lintels of Barcam and C apernaum (figs. V III.45a, 49a, b, 51a-c), although
disfigured, probably also have a symmetrical antithetic design. In the Golan
synagogues this composition is encountered in the lintels of K azrin, cAssalieh and
D abbura (figs. V III.46b,c, 53), and in the cEn Sam sam relief (PI. 26). Several sar­
cophagi at Beth Shecarim are carved with repetitive heraldic designs: Nikae flanking
a w reath, lions flanking a bull’s head (figs. X .l , 6) (see also the Safsaf lintel (fig.
V III,51e), and an am phora flanked by lions (fig. X .6). M any mosaic pavem ent
panels and scenes are rendered in this symmetrical patterning (figs. IX .8; 40-42).
A further feature of patterning is the reduction of figures, whether hum an or anim al,
and plants into abstract shapes and geometric forms, for instance, in the cEn Sam ­
sam relief (PI. 26) and on the “ N ikae” sarcophagus from Beth Shecarim (fig. X .l) ,
on the vine scroll geometrification at Chorazin, C apernaum and Beth Shecarim (Pis.
43-47), in the inhabited scroll mosaic pavements (figs. IX .41, 42; Pis. 85-87).
368 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY
2) A second antithetic tendency is richness of effect. This is expressed in ‘all-over’
or 'endless’ patterns formed by repetitive designs filling long and narrow spaces, for
example on ossuary decorations (figs. I V .15-17; PI. 18), and on architectural or­
nam entation at Chorazin and C apernaum (figs. V III.47-50). It is also expressed by
horror vacui, the filling of all space with ornam ent, and is seen in a preference for op­
tical patterns created by the play of light and shade in sculpture.
A nother com ponent of O riental art, symbolism, had an influence on Jew ish art.
Because it was im portant both to the artists and to their employers, appearance is
often sacrificed for the sake of symbolism (Avi-Yonah 1981a: 65), for instance, in
the preference for the lion and the bull (figs. X .4-11, 16), and especially in the
synagogue portrayals of religious symbols such as the m enorah and the Ark (fig.
I X .8; Pis. 101-105).
T he origins of some O riental features can be discerned in inherited elements of
ancient Assyrian and H ittite art and contem porary P arthian art, which strongly in ­
fluenced Jew ish art as well as other ethnic arts in the area, such as N abatean art.
In Avi-Yonah’s words (1981a: 115) the native artist
expressed a Western subject with an Oriental context by using (voluntarily or involun­
tarily) the motifs of his ancestral inheritance; the resulting ‘form’ showing... a more or
less manifest tendency to expressionism and stylization.
B) H e l l e n is t ic - R o m a n E lem ents and S ources of J e w is h
Two m ain centres, A lexandria and Antioch, are responsible for the Hellenistic in­
fluence on Jew ish art as regards both iconography and themes, composition and
style. Even though little A lexandrian art has itself survived, its authority is felt in
works of art, for instance in the iconography of the Nilotic scenes such as in the
House of Leontis (fig. IX .37; Pis. 68-70), and on church floors at T abha and
H aditha (Avi-Yonah 1960a: 16, 17; 1972). Scholars m aintain that the Biblical pic­
torial representations m ay have been based on illum inated m anuscripts created, by
Alexaiidrian Jew s, as illustrations for the Scriptures translated for foreigners (Avi-
Yonah 1973: 128; 1975: 65; 1981c). Thus, an indirect influence of A lexandrian
Hellenistic art on Biblical mosaics in the Rom an-B yzantine period can be posited.
T he selection of objects including floral and faunal motifs presum ed to have ex­
isted in the Jew ish pattern books, also reflects a Hellenistic them atic influence. In
Ptolem aic times, interest in the natural sciences was strong: zoological gardens were
constructed, and artists probably used catalogues and sketch books of beasts, birds
and floral motifs which were based on a study of the creatures themselves (see also
p. 392 and Avi-Yonah 1960a:21). T he composition of pavem ent carpets was prob­
ORIGINS AN D SOURCES OF JEW ISH ART 369
ably influenced slightly by the Antioch mosaic floors (Levi 1947: 156 ff., 606 ff.),
and the depiction of several motifs is similar to their rendition in Antioch mosaics.
Hellenistic influence is seen in the m ovem ent, the organic forms and in the anatom ic
emphasis of motifs. Furtherm ore, Hellenistic impressionism is felt in the
highlighting of the centre of bodies, limbs, or trees, although the sides are left in
shadow (Avi-Yonah 1960a: 21).
C) B y z a n t in e E l e m e n t s in J e w is h A rt
Typical features of Byzantine art, encountered on synagogue mosaic pavements
(Avi-Yonah 1960a: 21-22), include: 1) Rhythm ic grouping and descriptive isolation
(Beth ‫*־‬Alpha Biblical panel, fig. I X .31, PI. 64); 2) A com bination of realistic details
with a conceptual isolation of images (see the bird in the cage, the hen laying eggs
in the M a con pavem ent, fig. X . 34); 3) Com plete disregard for true proportions of
anim als and objects in relation to each other; 4) Horror vacui—typical of O riental art.
In execution, typical Byzantine methods are noticeable such as a stylization of
figures, by the use of a single or double outline. These Byzantine features are based
on O riental elements which can be defined as m onum ental, static and conceptual
attitudes.
A rt
T he encounter between the different artistic attitudes resulted in an art style,
which included integrated O riental and H ellenistic-Rom an elements of ornam enta­
tion. The traditional repertoire inherited from the H ellenistic-Rom an world con­
tained natural and everyday motifs taken from pattern books which were combined
with traditional Jew ish geometric and floral motifs based on art of the Second T em ­
ple period, and combined with the conceptual and stylized O riental art; these con­
stituted the m ain sources of Jew ish art during Late A ntiquity in the Land of Israel
and in the Diaspora.

C H A P T E R T H IR T E E N
A C O M P A R IS O N B ETW EEN JE W IS H A N D C H R IS T IA N A R T
A) T he P arallel bu t sepa ra te d ev elo pm en t of Synagogue and
Mosaic Pavements
The num ber of churches in the Land of Israel constructed during the period is
close to three hundred, whereas only a few score synagogues were built at that time.
Nevertheless it is still interesting to compare the two groups, as the development of
synagogue and church pavem ent decoration shows interesting comparisons and con­
trasts which were determ ined by the religious convictions of the Jew ish and C hris­
tian communities.
1) Characteristic Features of Synagogue Pavements
a) Synagogue pavem ents in the fourth century at H am m ath Tiberias (figs. X I. 1,
9) are the first to be designed to include prototypical themes and subjects proving
that their iconography developed earlier than that of the churches.
b) The Jew s chose figurative subjects and symbolic motifs, such as the m enorah
and other ritual utensils, Biblical scenes and the zodiac panel, for their synagogue
pavements. This deliberate choice of symbolic elements was m eant to emphasize the
distinct and independent quality of Judaism .
c) Synagogue pavem ents contain conventionalized designs and schemes such as
panels of symbolic and ritual motifs integrated with varied subjects such as the
zodiac, and heraldic scenes with inscriptions (Pis. 71-74; figs. X I. 9-14).
d) To floors containing designs of medallions filled with beasts and birds was
added a symbolic panel or m otif (M acon and Beth She^an B (small) synagogues (figs.
IX .41, 42).
e) Artists working on synagogue floors show a hum orous inclination in their art
when depicting scenes such as the Beth 5Alpha hen and her chicks (fig. X .33b), or
the M a con hen laying an egg (fig. X .34a); Avi-Yonah (1960a:20) proposes that this
inclination is due to the agricultural character of the Jew ish comm unity.
f) A tendency towards realism is encountered in the m enoroth of M acon and
H ulda which are rendered in detailed naturalism (Pis. 60, 87).
COM PARISO N BETW EEN JEW ISH AND CH RISTIA N ART 371
g) O riental art elements predom inate in the decoration of most synagogue
pavements.
2) Characteristic Features of Church Pavements
a) Figurative subjects on church pavem ents begin to appear only in the sixth cen­
C hurch
tury and are completely different from those of synagogues, taking the form of genre
subjects which represented “ the world as it is,” vintage and village life (for example,
see Beth She^an and H aditha churches and m onastery (Avi-Yonah 1981b: 364;
1972:122), and the sixth century church of Kissufim (Cohen 1980)).
b) M ythological and pagan themes are absent, except for some specific subjects
such as O rpheus (Avi-Yonah 1981b:364). It was forbidden to depict Biblical scenes
on church pavem ents in view of the danger of their being trodden upon. Symbolic
motifs and religious elements are rarely depicted on church floors for the same
reason.
c) T he organization of the church’s field is also different to that of the synagogue:
floors are divided into geometric or organic carpets, and sometimes sub-divided into
sections by vine branches or geometric patterns such as squares, circles, and hex­
agons, all of which are filled with beasts, birds, and plants (Kursi, K urnub, Shellal,
Beth She’an, fig. IX .43; PI. 107).
d) T he decoration of carpets by the inhabited scroll m ethod is very common on
church floors of the sixth century.
3) Chronological and Stylistic Development of Synagogue and Church Mosaic Pavements
A very curious phenom enon is revealed when the development of synagogue
pavem ent design is compared to that of church pavements: the growth and evolution
of each is always conceptually and consciously in an opposite direction. In other
words, whenever one religion chooses to represent figurative art, the other refrains,
and vice versa. Figurative art, iconography and symbolism, religious themes and
calendars (zodiacs) as well as mythology and pagan subjects are introduced into the
designs on synagogue floors from the fourth century on; Biblical scenes start being
used from the fifth century on; and during the sixth century the presence of carpets
with inhabited scrolls becomes common. Synagogue pavem ents tu rn to an aniconic
style in the mid-sixth century. This style represents the result of the trend away from
the depiction of hum an figures (M acon, fig. I X .41); at the same tim e the zodiac
figurative depiction is replaced by an inscribed panel (cEn-Gedi, PL 51). At Susiya
the mosaic figurative zodiac and Biblical scenes are intentionally replaced by
372 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY
geometric and floral carpets (PI. 75), and at N acaran iconoclasts remove all the
figurative depictions (fig. X I. 11; PI. 74). From the mid-sixth century onwards,
synagogue pavements comprise geometric and floral carpets, sometimes with an
emblem decorating a part of the carpet, as at Jericho, cEn-Gedi and M acoz H ayim
(fig. X I. 13; Pis. 95-96). It should be noted that throughout this development most
of the synagogue pavem ents have some symbolic element depicted, usually the
m enorah, either in a prom inent place (H am m ath Tiberias, Beth 5Alpha, M acon,
Susiya, Pis. 87, 101, 103, 104); but occasionally in the border (cEn-Gedi, M acoz
H ayim , or in an inscription in the House of Leontis in Beth She5an, Pis. 69, 95,
96b). In conclusion, it seems that synagogue pavem ent decoration altered from
carpets with figurative representations into aniconic geometric and floral patterned
carpets which integrated symbolic elements (also Avi-Yonah 1975: 56).
Early churches (early fifth century) are decorated solely with geometric carpets,
and no figurative art appears (Shavei Zion, Evron; K itzinger 1965b: Pis. 6, 7).
Floral and faunal subjects begin to appear only in the mid-fifth century at T abgha
and the C hurch of the Nativity in Bethlehem (Avi-Yonah 1960a; Kitzinger 1965b:
Pis. 1-3). In C hristian art, representations of sacred symbols on pavements is forbid­
den by imperial decree in 427 C E ( Theodosian Code, I tit. V III). This decree causes
the development of a tendency towards hidden C hristian symbols, particularly in the
sixth century. At the same time, church pavements again begin to employ figurative
ornam entation consisting mostly of genre subjects such as natural history, vintage,
village and hunting scenes, which are considered inoffensive. Inhabited scroll p at­
terns also become popular. Even though figurative designs are now employed, the
negative attitude towards depictions of symbolic subjects is retained. Although
village life and labours of the m onths m ay seem to be realistic depictions, they prob­
ably hide the symbolic m eaning of earthly paradise, a very common notion in this
period (for this see Avi-Yonah 1972: 122).
T he total impression produced by the above analysis, therefore, can be sum ­
m arized as follows: whereas, in the fourth to sixth centuries synagogue art accepts
and uses figurative representations, church art is strictly aniconic. In the mid-sixth
century, church pavements begin to show figurative scenes, which simultaneously
slowly disappear from synagogue floors: instead, they are replaced by overall
geometric carpets including emblems (the Jericho synagogue, fig. X I. 13), or by
geometric motifs and w ritten inscriptions (Susiya, cEn-Gedi, Rehov, Pis. 51, 52,
75). O ne of the causes for this separate and opposite development m ay have been
due to the desire on the part of the Jew s to intentionally distinguish their art and
architecture from that of Christianity: they did this by an em phatic affirm ation of
Jew ish spiritual values, which they symbolically expressed by the specific ornam en­
tation of their synagogues.
CO M PARISON BETW EEN JEW ISH AND C H R ISTIA N ART 373
B) A C o m p a r is o n o f B ib l ic a l S c e n e s in b o t h J e w is h and C h r is t ia n A rt
Similar themes occur in both Jew ish and C hristian art, with entirely different in­
terpretations being given by the different religions. Early C hristian catacomb art
uses Biblical scenes in an abbreviated and sum m arized m anner (G rabar 1968: 25,
94-95, describes them as image-signs). From the beginning, there is a tendency
towards a symbolism which would disguise the true m eaning of the stories by the
use of allegory and proverb; thus only the faithful (Christians) who would be ac­
quainted with the symbols would have the truth revealed to them . Likewise, the Old
T estam ent was also used as a pre-figuration of the New Testam ent. The cult in early
Christianity was centred around death and the after-life. For this reason Christian
art most frequently took from the Bible stories which would emphasize a promise
of individual salvation, such as Jo n ah , Moses, Daniel in the lion’s den, N oah’s Ark
and the sacrifice of Isaac.
(In C hristian art no Biblical scenes are depicted on pavements except one—
Aquileia, which tells the Jo n a h story, and is dated to the fourth century, see Testini
1958.)
Differences between Jew ish and Christian depictions of Biblical scenes are, in
sum:
1) In Jew ish art the form is descriptive-narrative whereas in early Christian art
the scenes are depicted in a symbolic and allegorical form (also G rabar 1968: 94-95).
In later C hristian m onum ental art the tendency is also toward the descriptive-
narrative form, but different aspects of the story are emphasized.
2) T he scenes are depicted on synagogue pavem ents, that is they are part of
synagogal art. Early C hristian Biblical scenes are rendered only on catacomb
frescoes and sarcophagi, that is, they were considered fit subjects for funerary art.
3) T he m eaning of the Jew ish depictions is connected with the belief in divine
salvation for His chosen people. In Christianity the m eaning is associated with
m an ’s individual salvation, his death, and after-life (also G rabar 1968: 25-26).
4) T he Jew ish scenes are fully descriptive and include intricate details, as on the
synagogue pavements of Gerasa and Beth 5Alpha, whereas in early Christian
funerary art the scenes are sum m arized and abbreviated.
5) T he Jew ish synagogue scenes are part of the synagogue pavem ent program m e
(see p. 347f.), which is not the case in Christian art which probably follows a
Hellenistic form.
6) The prim ary purpose of figurative representation in Jewish scenes was as a
rem inder of the traditional Biblical stories; the use of symbolism, prevalent in C hris­
tian art, was of m inor interest.
374 JEW ISH ART AND ARCH AEOLOGY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY CO M PARISON BETW EEN JEW ISH A N D CH R ISTIAN ART 375

T he iconographical similarity of the Jew ish scenes and the early C hristian T he differences between synagogue and church architecture is the result of the
funerary art derives not from a comm on figurative origin, but rather from a com­ liturgy and the types of worship each religion developed. However, contacts and in­
m on literary origin, from the Biblical text itself (cf. W eitzm an 1971a; 1971b; and fluences upon the art and architecture of both religions were quite considerable,
see pp. 287-300). especially because of the fact that the same craftsm en and artists worked for both
Jew ish synagogues and C hristian churches (see pp. 388-391). Jew s, due to a desire
to assert their identity, depicted their Jew ish symbols or added them to a popular
C) A r c h it e c t u r a l C o m p a r is o n s
form or design, such as the m enorah added to the C orinthian capitals of C apernaum
Religious buildings of both Jew s and Christians were constructed during the early and Caesarea (PI. 42a, b). This need for identification by the Jews was probably due
centuries of this m illenium. A new type of worship inside a com m unal prayer house partly to the fact that synagogues were fewer in num ber than churches.
dem anded a new kind of structure, a large hall with a focal point, which had to con­
form to the requirem ents of the com m unity in term s of function, ritual and orna­
m ent. Jew ish ritual influenced early C hurch liturgy. T hus, the development of the
synagogue building from the third century on influenced the architectural design of
churches built during the fourth century (G rabar 1967: 171-173).
Churches were the predom inant and most num erous religious edifices in the Land
of Israel during Late A ntiquity so that it follows that the variety of church types is
m uch greater than that of synagogues. C hurch types included the common basilica,
both round and octagonal, as well as cross-shaped structures. Synagogues, in
general, were of either the basilica type or were broad-house structures (figs.
V III. 1-4).
Several aspects of architectural comparison between churches and synagogues can
be docum ented (also Avi-Yonah 1957: 264-270):
1) Provenance—Synagogues were erected on high places, in the centre of a town or
village, or on the seashore. The synagogue in the village of Chorazin is m ore or less
in its centre (fig. V II.2) and the same is true of the synagogues of M eiron and
K azrin. The C aesarea synagogue is positioned in the Jew ish quarter north of the
harbour. Churches, too, were set usually in the centre of a town or village.
2) Plan—Synagogues have three m ain architectural features: the T orah shrine on
the Jerusalem -oriented wall, the triple entrance (sometimes only a single entrance),
and the gallery (see pp. 232-233). In the fifth century the plan of the synagogue in­
cluded an apse which became the T orah shrine. In the church, the area in front of
the altar and apse was accessible only to the clergy, and was separated from the re­
m ainder of the hall by a chancel screen. T he two rooms (the prothasis and the
diakonikori) which flank the central apse were added to the church structure at the end
of the fifth century.
3) Orientation— Synagogue orientation is determ ined by the T orah shrine erected
on the Jerusalem -oriented wall (see p. 23Iff.). The church, by comparison, has its
apse on the eastern wall, pointing towards the rising sun.

CHAPTER FOURTEEN
D IS T IN G U IS H IN G FEA T U R E S O F JE W IS H A R T
A) U n id e n t ic a l S y m m e t r ic a l C o m p o s it io n
A distinctive feature of Jew ish art is the antithetic symmetrical composition,
which occurs in almost all figurative and decorative subjects, and which is one of
the basic elements of O riental art (p. 367). This composition is unconventional how­
ever in the m anner in which it is represented: either 1) in an unsym m etrical design
caused by the depiction of different flanking motifs, or 2) rendered in an unidentical
symmetry:
1) The first group of representations includes heraldic designs of motifs on carved
synagogue lintels: for instance, lintels from C apernaum (figs. V III, 47; 49a,b; 51a).
A central m otif such as a wreath, conch, or an Ark of the Scrolls is flanked by two
dissimilar floral motifs which differ either in size or in actual design. The same u n ­
symmetrical pattern m ay be observed in funerary art, for instance the “ A canthus”
sarcophagus A at Beth Shecarim (fig. X .2). O n this sarcophagus are carved three
garlands, the central garland containing a lion which is depicted flanked by rem ­
nants of two different whorls of leaves. “ A canthus” sarcophagus B (fig. X .14) has
two different rosettes depicted above the two lateral garlands. The most outstanding
example of this feature is found in the entrance panel of the mosaic pavem ent of the
Beth 5Alpha synagogue where the inscription is flanked by a lion on one side and
by a bull on the other (fig. X .7c). Avi-Yonah (1981a: 51) m aintains that the animals
were selected for their symbolic value.
2) M ost frequently antithetic designs are composed symmetrically, but in some
cases aesthetic symm etry is realised even though some objects or animals are clearly
not identical, and are intentionally represented dissimilarly. This characteristic is mostly
found on synagogue mosaic pavements. By the third and fourth centuries this
tendency appears, and its popularity increases during later periods. Examples are
encountered on some of the synagogue lintels, such as the Gush H alav lintel suffit
where an eagle is flanked by two unidentical garlands (fig. X .20a). The relief from
cEn Samsam (Pl. 26) portrays a figure flanked symmetrically by a lion and a lioness
differing from each other in sex, size, and tail position. The eagles flanking the scene
at each end are also unidentical.
DISTING U ISH ING FEATURES OF JEW ISH ART 377
In funerary art at Beth Shecarim , the same tendency is encountered. M enoroth
painted in red on sealing stones are unidentical (fig. I X .7): the left m enorah has a
horizontal bar with lamps, whereas the right m enorah lacks this feature. O n the
other draw ing only the left m enorah shows lamps on its bar. The left m enorah has
five branches only, although the right has seven. T he carvings of the aediculae flank­
ing the arcosole (fig. V III.27) are executed symmetrically, but are different and
unidentical: the left depicts an Ark inside the aedicula, whereas the right aedicula
contains a m enorah. $ome of the Beth Shecarim sarcophagi also exhibit this
tendency to unidentical symmetry: the “ Shell” sarcophagus shows two aediculae
asymmetrically depicted on the panel of the facade. Each aedicula has a different
figure, one a lion, the other a bird (PI. 30). The “ Eagle” sarcophagus (fig. X .6b)
has lions on the front and back which are symmetrical, but have different tails and
leg-execution. The “ L ion” sarcophagus is distinguished by its heraldic scene of a
lion and a lioness flanking an unfinished vase (fig. X .6a). The lioness is shorter, has
a larger, extended tongue, and her ears and hind legs differ from those of the lion.
T he lion is larger than his m ate. The same dimensional difference is seen on the
sides of the “ N ikae” and “ M enorah” sarcophagi (fig. X .19) where symmetrical
heraldic dolphins are represented: one is larger than the other. A further unidentical
scene is carved on the narrow side of the “ Shell” sarcophagus: a lion and lioness
flank an anim al, probably a gazelle (Avigad 1976: PI. X L III:2).
Impressive examples of this tendency are found in the representations on
synagogue mosaic pavements:
a) Several panels depict a T orah shrine flanked by m enoroth and ritual objects
in a symmetrical composition which contains varied flanking objects. For example,
the Beth 5Alpha T orah shrine panel is unidentical in almost all its heraldic elements
(PL 102): the m enoroth flanking the Ark are unidentical in their bases and in the
lam ps on the bar; the four ritual objects are each depicted differently; the two lions
appear similar but have different tails; and the birds are each rendered differently.
T he H am m ath Tiberias upper panel shows a symmetrical rendition (PL 101), but
even here the two shofaroth and incense shovels are dissimilar in their details. The
m enoroth in the Susiya pavem ent (PL 104) differ completely from each other, partic­
ularly in their branches, and bases. The shofaroth and the incense shovels depicted
on the synagogue pavem ent of Beth She5an are each different (PL 103). The en­
trance panel at Huseifa (Pl. 56 and fig. X I .5) shows two m enoroth each depicted
in a completely different m anner: one has pottery lam ps whereas glass lamps are
shown on the other; furtherm ore, the branches are rendered dissimilarly. In the cen­
tre of the Beth 5Alpha zodiac panel (PL 76) the horses, two on each side of the sun
god, are rendered symmetrically, but are portrayed differently, particularly in their
head decoration.
378 JEW ISH ART A ND ARCHAEO LOG Y IN LATE A N TIQ UITY
b) Animals flank inscriptions, m enoroth, as well as the Ark on several synagogue
mosaic pavements. These animals are usually similar, although differences in details
can be distinguished. T he H am m ath Tiberias pavem ent shows lions facing each
other across the inscription (fig. X .7a). These lions differ in facial details such as
their ears. The Beth She5an B small synagogue has an inscription flanked by birds
(fig. X.26) which differ in size, the left being the larger. The N acaran Biblical scene
of Daniel flanked by lions depicts the lions symmetrically, but each with a different
tail position (fig. IX .34): the left lion has an upw ard-turned tail, whereas the right
lion has his tail between his hind legs. The entrance panel at N acaran depicts two
unidentical (repaired) stags facing each other (fig. X .17). The cEn-Gedi central
emblem shows birds symmetrically placed, but with differences in size and stance
(PL 96b).
c) Inhabited scroll pavements themselves sometimes contain antithetic designs
with unidentical details. At G aza some of the medallions are inhabited by similar
heraldic animals (PL 86, rows 5, 7, and 9); even these, however, show differences:
the leopards in row 9 have unidentical tails. In row 3, different animals flank a dog;
a lioness and her cub on one side and a tigress on the other (PL 86a). O n the upper
part of the M a con synagogue pavem ent the lions flanking the m enorah differ in
m ane and heads (Pl. 87). The two elephants in row 8 are rendered differently to each
other, particularly their trunks.
H eraldic symm etry with unidentical elements is only seldom encountered on
pagan reliefs of N abatean temples and tombs (Glueck 1965: Pis. 12, 38a,b, 54a,b,
167a,b,c, 177), as well as on mosaic pavements in churches, such as Shellal, and the
to w n o fN e b o (Sailer and Bagatti 1949: Pis. 14:1, 20:1-4, 21:1, 28:1, 3, 30:1, 34:3,
37:3, 39:2, etc.).
A particularly cornmon m ethod of stressing the unidentical character of these
designs is by the varied m anner of depicting anim al tails (figs. X .6, 7).
The antithetic symmetrical design was an integral part of both Jew ish synagogal
as well as funerary art. The inclination to depict unidentical objects or animals
within the heraldic design m ust have been intentional as it would have been just as
easy to portray completely identical designs. Furtherm ore, it need not be related to
unskillful artistic treatm ent as some designs do use symmetrical patterns. U niden­
tical symmetry was a style intentionally adopted by the Jew s in particular. O ne m ay
conjecture that it is associated with a desire to avoid competition with a perfection
only God could achieve. O n the other hand, this trend m ay have been due to the
character of Jew ish popular art, and to the artists’ standards of composition and
their cultural environm ent, which did not traditionally dem and perfection.
DISTIN G U ISH ING FEATURES OF JEW ISH ART 379
B) IC O N O G R A PH IC A LLY -D E C O R A TE D MOSAIC FLOORS
M osaic floor decorations include iconographic and symbolic elements, a paradox­
ical fact which needs emphasizing; even Biblical scenes which contain a representa­
tion of the H and of God, as in Isaac’s Sacrifice at Beth 5Alpha (fig. IX .31 and PI.
64), were considered fit subjects for a floor which was continually being trodden upon:
T orah shrines, m enoroth and other ritual objects were also regarded as suitable for
the pavem ents of H am m ath Tiberias, Beth 5Alpha, N acaran and Susiya (Pis. 101-
105). (For the reason why church floors excluded iconography and symbols, see
p. 373). Equally im portant is the fact that even the inscriptions depicted on mosaic
floors were allowed to be stepped upon. Although the word was m uch more
respected than the image, as proved by the iconoclastic treatm ent given to some
pavem ents such as at N acaran (fig. X I. 11; PI. 74), inscriptions were an integral part
of the synagogue floor, and probably replaced figurative art as indicated by the in­
scription at cE n‫־‬Gedi (PI. 51) where a list of zodiac signs followed by the twelve
m onths replaces the earlier representational zodiacs as see in other synagogues (p.
309). The first part of the cE n‫־‬Gedi inscription names the thirteen ancestors of the
world, (taken from I Chron. 1: 1-4). O n the second part of the inscription following
the list of the twelve zodiac signs and twelve m onths, are depicted the three
patriarchs. Amazingly this representation did not prevent the Jew ish com m unity of
cEn-Gedi from treading upon this floor.
T he inscription of the Rehov synagogue is noteworthy not only because of its
being the longest synagogue mosaic inscription found up to now but also because
of its being devoted to m atters of H alakha m entioned also in the Jerusalem T alm ud
(PL 52). Both this and the cEn-Gedi inscriptions are dated as late as the seventh cen­
tury. T heir prom inent place on the synagogue pavem ents was the result of the
change in the sixth century when figurative art was once again forbidden and was
replaced by geometric and floral composition.
W hy did Jew s intentionally include Biblical scenes and religious symbols am ong
the subject m atter used to adorn synagogue mosaic floors? Avi-Yonah (1960b: 32)
m aintains that Jews of the Talm udic period were “ notoriously insensitive to images,
w hether symbolic or Biblical.” However, it seems m ore likely that this reflects the
Jew ish avoidance of the worship of images of idolatry, m entioned at the end of the
Second of the T en Com m andm ents (Ex. 20: 15; Deut. 5: 1-9): “ Thou shalt not bow
down thyself to them , nor serve th em .” Stepping on an image m ust have removed
its sacrosanct quality. In this way the Jew s struggled against idolatry, acting on the
principle that as long as the “ graven im age” would be widely represented on
synagogue mosaic floors and would be trodden upon the pernicious influence of
idolatry could be neutralized.
380 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY DISTIN G U ISH IN G FEATURES OF JEW ISH ART 381

C) I n t e n t io n a l I m p e r f e c t io n in J e w is h F unerary A rt

T he phenom enon of the incomplete ornam entation is encountered in the funerary

art of the Second Tem ple period on tomb facades, sarcophagi, and ossuaries in
Jerusalem . In the Beth Shecarim cemetery the same idiosyncrasy occurs in carvings
which are half-finished on tomb walls and in sarcophagi ornam entation.
1) The facade of the “ Tom b of the K ings” in Jerusalem dated to the Second T em ­
ple period is unfinished: the lintel is complete, but the carved ornam ent on each side
of the d o o rja m b is left incomplete (fig. IV .8).
2) In the same tom b, a sarcophagus was found with an inscription m entioning
Q ueen Saddah, identified as H elena of Adiabene (Avigad 1956, fig. 21). Two discs
only flank the inscription. Goodenough (1953, I: 134) m aintains that the artisan left
these discs to be carved later with rosettes, at the discretion of the client.
3) South of the “ Tom b of Zechariah” in the K idron Valley of Jerusalem , an u n ­
finished entrance is carved with two columns (fig. IV . 12).
4) Several ossuaries exhibit the same phenom enon of half-finished carved or­
nam entation. M any of the motifs, the rosette in particular, are incomplete. O cca­
sionally two rosettes are depicted on the ossuary; one is beautifully chip-carved,
whereas the other is only schematically outlined (fig. la). A nother ossuary has com ­
pletely carved rosettes; one of them however shows a rudim entary ornam ental ele­
m ent between the rosette leaves, never finished (fig. lb). O n another ossuary, ashlar
stones, probably m eant to cover the whole front of the ossuary, are carved, but are
uncom pleted (fig. lc) (R ahm ani 1967: ossuary 17, PI. 39:1, p. 189). O n a Jericho
ossuary one rosette and the corner patterns are unfinished (PI. 19)-.
5) In the Beth Shecarim cemetery several of the sarcophagi have incomplete
decorations:
a) Sarcophagus no. 25, the “ D aughters” sarcophagus (fig. 2a), has an incomplete
left wreath.
b) O n the “ Shell” sarcophagus (PI. 30), the left w reath adjacent to the eagle
aedicula is unfinished·
c) O n sarcophagus no. 87 (fig. 2b) the rosette is outlined by a circle only and was
never completed. R ahm ani contends (1977: 25) that the ossuary work shows indifference on the part
d) Only the first few eggs of the egg and dart patterns on the rim of the “ Acanthus of the artists and their clients towards the quality of the finished product (the
B ” sarcophagus are carved (fig. X .14) (Avigad 1976: 152, PI. 48,1). ossuary). This is explained further by the civil strife and the exigency of the time,
e) The “ M enorah” sarcophagus has a plain front with two columns, on which two which was during the war against the Rom ans when m any of the workshops were
thin red painted lines are m arked. Avigad (1976: 149) contends that this was in either completely closed down or were operating at a reduced level of workm anship.
preparation for carving. Both dem and and quality consequently were affected.
380 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY DISTIN G U ISH IN G FEATURES OF JEW ISH ART 381

C) I n t e n t io n a l I m p e r f e c t io n in J e w is h F unerary A rt

The phenom enon of the incomplete ornam entation is encountered in the funerary
art of the Second Tem ple period on tomb facades, sarcophagi, and ossuaries in
Jerusalem . In the Beth Shecarim cemetery the same idiosyncrasy occurs in carvings
which are half-finished on tomb walls and in sarcophagi ornam entation.
1) The facade of the “ Tom b of the K ings” in Jerusalem dated to the Second T em ­
ple period is unfinished: the lintel is complete, but the carved ornam ent on each side
of the d o o rja m b is left incomplete (fig. IV .8).
2) In the same tom b, a sarcophagus was found with an inscription m entioning
Q ueen Saddah, identified as H elena of Adiabene (Avigad 1956, fig. 21). Two discs
only flank the inscription. Goodenough (1953, I: 134) m aintains that the artisan left
these discs to be carved later with rosettes, at the discretion of the client.
3) South of the “ Tom b of Z echariah” in the K idron Valley of Jerusalem , an u n ­
finished entrance is carved with two columns (fig. IV. 12).
4) Several ossuaries exhibit the same phenom enon of half-finished carved or­
nam entation. M any of the motifs, the rosette in particular, are incomplete. O cca­
sionally two rosettes are depicted on the ossuary; one is beautifully chip-carved,
whereas the other is only schematically outlined (fig. la). A nother ossuary has com­
pletely carved rosettes; one of them however shows a rudim entary ornam ental ele­
m ent between the rosette leaves, never finished (fig. lb). O n another ossuary, ashlar
stones, probably m eant to cover the whole front of the ossuary, are carved, but are
uncom pleted (fig. lc) (R ahm ani 1967: ossuary 17, Pl. 39:1, p. 189). O n a Jericho
ossuary one rosette and the corner patterns are unfinished (Pl. 19)‫־‬.
5) In the Beth Shecarim cemetery several of the sarcophagi have incomplete
decorations:
a) Sarcophagus no. 25, the “ D aughters” sarcophagus (fig. 2a), has an incomplete
left wreath.
b) O n the “ Shell” sarcophagus (Pl. 30), the left wreath adjacent to the eagle
aedicula is unfinished.
c) O n sarcophagus no. 87 (fig. 2b) the rosette is outlined by a circle only and was
never completed.
R ahm ani contends (1977: 25) that the ossuary work shows indifference on the part
d) O nly the first few eggs of the egg and dart patterns on the rim of the ‘4Acanthus
of the artists and their clients towards the quality of the finished product (the
B ” sarcophagus are carved (fig. X .14) (Avigad 1976: 152, Pl. 48,1).
ossuary). This is explained further by the civil strife and the exigency of the time,
e) The “ M enorah” sarcophagus has a plain front with two columns, on which two
which was during the w ar against the Rom ans when m any of the workshops were
thin red painted lines are m arked. Avigad (1976: 149) contends that this was in
either completely closed down or were operating at a reduced level of workmanship.
preparation for carving.
Both dem and and quality consequently were affected.
382 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE A N TIQ UITY

C H A P T E R F IF T E E N

A R T IST S A N D P A T T E R N B O O K S

A) A r t is t s , C r aftsm en a n d W ork sh o ps

T he identity of artists and their workshops is an im portant topic. Artists and

2a. “ D au gh ters” Sarcophagus, Beth workshops supplied their products indiscrim inately to Jew s, C hristians and pagans
Shecarim. alike. However, some Jew ish artists produced their works only for Jew ish funerary
and synagogal purposes.
Schools, workshops and artists can be identified by the following m eans (also
A :.:::jy D auphin 1976: 145-146; 1978: 409-410):
By the means of inscriptions m entioning artists, craftsm en or builders and their
works.
By an analysis of stylistic and technical idiosyncrasy which m ay characterize an artist
jys or workshop.
‫״‬ in i By an exam ination of the motifs and patterns which m ay contribute to the identifica­
tion of artists and workshops.
D auphin (1976a: 145) proposes two groups of mosaic artists: 1) mosaicist
workshops—groups of artisans and craftsm en working within schools and based in
large cities such as Antioch, H am a and Beth She^an, and 2) travelling groups of ar­
tists consisting of a m aster craftsm an and his assistants.
An answer to the question of the identity of the artists and craftsmen can be
0 100 CM. deduced partly from inscriptions accom panying some of the architectural decorative
1 i i 1------1------1 elements as well as from inscriptions on synagogue mosaic pavements which some­
times m ention the craftsm en by both nam e and deed. The following examples come
2b. Sarcophagus 87, Beth Shecarim .
from the Galilee and the Golan:
1) An inscribed H ebrew-Aram aic lintel found at cAlm a (near Safed) reads “ Am en
Selah, I Jose, son of Levi the Levite, the craftsm an who m a d e ....” (fig. la) (H estrin
This unusual trait of partly incomplete ornam entation recurs often in funerary art 1960: 65; Naveh 1978: 22-23).
and it seems to suggest m ore than mere negligence in craftsm anship, or indifference 2) T he same artist is m entioned on a Hebrew lintel inscription on the small
on the part of the clientele, but rather that it was done intentionally and also had synagogue at B arcam (fig. V III.45a) (Naveh 1960: 19, 23). It seems that both this
some significance. and the above-m entioned lintel inscription were executed by the same Jew ish ar­
tisan, “Jose the Levite, son of L evi,” during the same period.
3) An Aram aic inscription on a stone from the cA m m udim synagogue reads
“ Yoezer the Hazan and Simeon his brother m ade this Gate to the Lord of H eaven”
384 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY ARTISTS A ND PATTERN BOOKS 385

(fig. lb ) (Avigad 1960b: 62, 63; See Naveh, 1978: 41-42, who reads not “ G ate” but
rather “ A rk ;” see p. 272).
4) O n an architrave found at D abbura (Golan) an otherwise A ram aic inscription
mentions in Greek the nam e of the builder: “ Stykos” (fig. lc) (Naveh 1978: 26-27).
5) In the Beth 5Alpha synagogue Greek inscription the craftsmen M arianos and
H anina are com m em orated (fig. X .7c). Sukenik (1932: 47) m aintains that they laid
the mosaic.
6) The same artisans are also m entioned in the Beth She5an A synagogue Greek
inscription on a small room(7) pavem ent (fig. X I .2) (Zori 1967: 159).
7) An Aram aic inscription on the Beth SheDan B synagogue mosaic reads
“ R em em bered be for good the artisan who m ade this w ork” (fig. X .26; PI. 106)
(Bahat 1981a 85; Naveh 1978:78-79).
All these inscriptions use either the A ram aic or the Greek term for craftsman.
8, 9) Two related A ram aic inscriptions record artists who “ m ade” mosaic floors.
Both the first, from K efar K ana (fig. Id), and the second, from Sepphoris (fig. le)
(Naveh 1978: 51-53), m ention a family of three generations: Yose and Y udan, sons
of T anhum , son of Buta, who “ m ade” mosaic pavem ents. Avi-Yonah (1981b: 375,
after Klein) proposes that these inscriptions attest to a family of artists with an in­
herited craft (but see Naveh, 1978: 52, who suggests that they were donors). The
term s used in these inscriptions are omna, and oman in Aram aic and Hebrew respect­
ively, and τεχνίτης in Greek.
In Talm udic literature the Aram aic term omna means artisan or skilled builder
(M. Berachot II, 4 \ J . } Hag. II, 1, 77b, line 15). T he Greek term used at Beth 5‫־‬A lpha
is τεχνίτες (artists) (Sukenik 1932: 47). H estrin (1960: 66) proposes the possibility
that these artisans or artists were responsible not only for the mosaic but also for the
building, for two reasons: 1) the same term also appears in Syria carved on lintels,
and tom b walls, and is used there for both artisan and builder; and 2) the inscrip­
tions on mosaic pavements could com m em orate the mosaicist as well as the builder,
because the only ornam ents are inside, on the mosaic floors, which were then the
only places for inscriptions. In other words the A ram aic, Hebrew and Greek term s
can be explained as m eaning artisan, craftsm an or builder. This is also attested to
by Butler (1929: 254) who says:
There was no great difference in the function of designer and builder. One must assume
that in most cases the architect was also the builder or contractor and may have been
himself an artisan as well.

1. Inscriptions: a) cAlma; b) H. cAmmudim; c) Dabbura; d) Kefar Kana; e) Sepphoris.

386 JEW ISH ART A ND ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY
ARTISTS A ND PATTERN BOOKS 387

2. Beth Shecarim Workshops

1. Jewish Artists

Several local artists or workshops are responsible for the carving of most of the
M ost of the inscriptions discussed above (with the exception of D abbura, no. 4)
stone sarcophagi found in catacomb 20. Even though they were influenced by the
m ention Jew ish names, which implies that there were m any Jew ish artists employed
styles of im ported m arble sarcophagi, their work testifies to a local style which
in synagogue building. T he craft was an inherited skill, traditionally a family oc­
employs motifs of Jew ish art (Avigad 1976: 163-165). These decorated sarcophagi
cupation, as attested to by the inscriptions. Two generations of a family, M arianos
can probably be related to at least four workshops or artists:
and his son, together m ade the mosaic pavem ent of Beth 5Alpha (inscription no. 5)
a) Two sarcophagi, the “ Shell” (no. 117) and the “ G able” (no. 103) sarcophagi
which is unique in style and execution; and also the pavem ent in one room of Beth
(Pl. 30) were probably m anufactured in the same workshop and display a com bina­
She5an synagogue A (room 7, inscription no. 6). T he three-generation family of
tion of Jew ish art motifs. This is attested to by i) the shell being a common central
Buta, T anhum , Yose and Y udan were mosaicists in the Galilee. Avi-Yonah (1961b:
motif, ii) the bird m otif inside the frames (Avigad 1976: Pis. X L IIIA :2; X L IV :4),
32) m aintains that the builders of the Galilean synagogues had to be Jew ish, as it
iii) the m oulding below the frames of the narrow sides, and iv) the cornice of the
would be unlikely that the Galilean Jews “ would entrust the construction of their
facades (Avigad 1975: 145).
synagogue to non-Jew s” although the actual execution m ay have been carried out
b) T he “ Eagle” and “ Bull” sarcophagi (fig. X .16) exhibit similarities, confirm ­
by local craftsm en, all Galileans (who m ight also have been Jews). These builders
ing that they were m ade in the same workshop (Avigad 1976: 143), in i) the style
were trained, according to Avi-Yonah, in a Gentile school, because of the confor­
of the bulls’ heads, ii) the stylized leaves of the garlands, and iii) the rim of the sar­
m ity of the Galilean synagogues to those of the Graeco-Syrian buildings in the
cophagi. It should be noted that several similarities can be observed between the
H auran. Furtherm ore, Avi-Yonah m aintains (1960b: 34) that the mosaicist who
“ Eagle” and the “ Shell” sarcophagi: note the lions with three legs flanking a bull’s
made the M acon synagogue pavem ent was possibly a Greek-speaking Jew from the
head (fig. X .6). It is possible that these four sarcophagi come from the same
Diaspora, because, on the one hand, the m enorah and the ritual objects are rendered
workshop, but were carved by different artists.
faithfully and yet, on the other the artist shows an ignorance of the Hebrew script.
c) The two “ A canthus” sarcophagi (nos. 97 and 101) (figs. X .2, 14) were carved
Barash (1980: 30-32) proposes that a travelling, foreign mosaicist having connec­
by different artists to those who produced the sarcophagi m entioned above. These
tions with Egypt and Syria, produced the David mosaic at Gaza.
two resemble m arble garland sarcophagi m anufactured in Asia M inor, and were
Jew ish literature of the tim e, the M ishna and the Talm ud, m ention the existence
carved by artists better qualified than the others. Avigad (1976: 152-153 and note
of Jew ish artists and craftsm en who also worked for Christians and pagans, as well
3) m aintains that these two sarcophagi are products of a Beth Shecarim workshop
as the attitude of Jew s towards artists and craftsm en . Am ong the various crafts the
or of one in the vicinity.
builders are m entioned first; they were highly appreciated (B., Sanhedrin 29a).
d) T he “ N ikae” (no. 125) and the “ M enorah” (no. 122) (fig. X .19) sarcophagi
H estrin (1960: 66) m aintains that the prom inent place of the inscription on the
display exactly the same m otif of dolphins with a w reath on their narrow sides.
cAlm a lintel was probably related to the high esteem in which the artist was held.
These m ay have been executed by the same artists, or it m ay be possible that the
Geom etric and floral motifs are frequently rendered in a m uch higher quality than
m otif was taken from a pattern book.
figurative representations in the same mosaic pavem ent. A long tradition existed
Further indications of the existence of Jew ish artists and/or workshops at Beth
am ong Jewish artists in the depiction of decorative patterns, that is, floral and
Shecarim can be seen in the three sarcophagi with unfinished decoration (see also
geometric motifs, whereas no such tradition is known for figurative representations.
pp. 380-382): sarcophagus no. 87 (fig. X IV .2b) has an incomplete rosette, the
This m ay be the reason for the qualitative differences in renditions.
“ D aughters” sarcophagus (fig. X IV .2a) and the “ Shell” sarcophagus have u n ­
Clearly, Jew ish artists created the mosaic pavem ents of Beth 5Alpha. Although
finished wreaths (Pl. 30). In all cases the unfinished part is on the left, dem onstrating
pattern books were used for the panel themes as in H am m ath Tiberias and N acaran,
that the artists worked from right to left (Avigad 1976: 158); this suggests that the
the style and execution of these pavem ents is unique in both Jew ish art and in the
Jew ish artists working at Beth Shecarim followed, in their carving, the direction of
art of Late A ntiquity‫״‬
Hebrew and Aramaic writing, that is, from right to left. Avigad (1976: 162-164)
388 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY ARTISTS A N D PATTERN BOOKS 389

contends that the Jew ish artists who carved the Beth Shearim sarcophagi (dated ap­
proxim ately to the third century) “ display low standards and inferior
talent...lim ited technical and artistic ability.” The artists, he m aintains, are “ pro­
vincial and inexperienced craftsm en.” Relatively high standards and artistic ability
are displayed only on the two “ A canthus” sarcophagi (figs? X .2, 14), the animal
frieze of the m ausoleum , and the lion and gazelle on the hunt sarcophagus (figs.
X .15, 24).

T he Jew ish Beth Shecarim workshops produced some of the sarcophagi placed
afterwards in the catacombs. The patterns they used are a blend of Hellenistic and
O riental elements, with the occasional creation of a new motif. The style in which
they worked is similar to that used in contem porary Jew ish synagogal art.
Local craftsmen, probably Jew ish, worked in Galilean and Golan synagogues and
were responsible for the distinctive features in the architectural decoration, such as
the Galilean/Golan synagogue architectural plan, the facade, the fram e ornam enta­
tion of the portals, the T orah shrine structure and decoration (see also pp. 230-231).
It m ay be reasonably inferred that these Jew ish artists coming from families with
long traditions of inherited craftsmanship worked prim arily for Jews, but were also
employed by Christians and pagans. This m ay be deduced from the similarities
am ong stylistic features of synagogues, churches and temples in the Galilee and
Syria, and also by synagogal and church architecture and art, particularly during
the sixth century (see p. 374). A comprehensive research outside the scope of this
book on the comparable style and composition of mosaics and architecture of both
synagogues and churches would be able to prove this contention.

2. D esign on Lead C offins, Beth Shecarim.

3. Craftsmen and workshops
These existed for clientele from all religions who patronized the workshops which
The Jew ish symbols were added before the casting (fig. 2). These coffins were
produced stone and lead sarcophagi and coffins, as well as ornam ented stone chancel
brought from Tyre or from Sidon for burial use in Beth Shecarim (during the early
screens. T here were also mosaicists who executed pavem ents. These workshops pro­
fourth century).
duced uniform or conventional designs which would be acceptable to the various
b) A workshop producing chancel screens for both synagogues and churches is
ethnic clientele. Special decorative designs or religious symbols would be added at
confirmed by finds in the Land of Israel. These screens are ornam ented with stylized
the request of the customer; they include Jew ish symbols for Jew s, C hristian sym­
wreaths with flowing ribbons. A m enorah, either with or without flanking ritual ob­
bols for C hristians, and mythological depictions for pagans.
jects, is depicted inside the wreath of the synagogue chancel screen (fig. V III.32),
T he following discussion is m eant to substantiate the premise that workshops did,
whereas the church screen usually portrays a cross inside the wreath. The similarity
in fact, exist:
of these screens seems to indicate that they are from the same workshop; for exam ­
a) The lead coffins at Beth Shecarim are products of a Sidonian workshop (Avigad
ple, the H am m ath G ader synagogue screen (fig. V III.32) resembles the Beth SheDan
1976: 173-182). Similar lead coffins with C hristian symbols have also been found.
m onastery screen (Avi-Yonah 1981a: PL 16:4-5; see also p. 189-190).
390 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY
c) Further proof which dem onstrates that a specific artist or workshop was
employed simultaneously by various communities is revealed when a comparison is
m ade between the mosaic pavements of the Beth She^an small synagogue B, the
H ouse of Leontis (both in the same building) (figs. I X .37, 42; Pis. 68-70, 85), and
room L of the C hristian m onastery of the Lady M ary at Beth She^an (Pl. 107) (Fit­
zgerald 1939: 9, Pis. X V I-X V II). I should like to propose that all three mosaic
pavements are executed by the same artist (or workshop); this proposition is based
on stylistic similarities, and a comparison of the following constituents of composi­
tion of the mosaics of the synagogue, House of Leontis and room L of the
monastery:
i) The am phorae of the synagogue and room L are identical.
ii) The vine branches, grape clusters and leaves of the designs are identical in the
synagogue and room L.
iii) The areas between the medallions of the mosaics of room L, and the
synagogue and the middle panel in the House of Leontis are all filled with birds and
beasts.
iv) Details of decoration are also similar: the bird in the left-hand corner of room
L and the birds in the wide ornate border of the synagogue pavem ent are similar;
the execution of the animals is similar: there is a resemblance between the ram and
buffalo in the synagogue, the giraffe and buffalo in room L, and the cow in the
H ouse of Leontis. R endition of eyes in all the beasts, in the room L, synagogue and
H ouse of Leontis mosaics, is similar. The guinea-fowl flanking a vase and inscrip­
tion in the synagogue (Pl. 107) m ay be compared with a similarly constructed bird
in the House of Leontis (Pl. 69): the same free, curved line may be seen in the body
and in the legs of the birds.
v) H um an figures bear a resemblance to each other in both the House of Leontis
and room L: Odysseus is similar, particularly in his hair, to the hunter in the upper
left medallion in room L. In his posture he resembles the m an with the flute in room
L.
d) The inhabited scrolls pavements (figs. IX .41 43‫ ;־‬Pis. 85-87), including those
of both synagogues and churches, are considered by Avi-Yonah (198Id) to have
been executed by the “ School of G aza” mosaicists, who worked in the southwestern
part of the Land of Israel. He bases this claim upon composition, patterns, and on
a recurring m otif (also D auphin 1976: 130). The present w riter cannot accept this
theory, however, because of chronological, stylistic and other reasons (see Hachlili
1986): the “ common denom inator” of all the pavem ents is the repetition of patterns
and motifs, due simply to the use of a pattern book, and not to the unifying element
of a “ school” (see also pp. 310-316).
ARTISTS AND PATTERN BOOKS 391
From the inscriptions, the style of carving and the mosaic executions, it can he
concluded that artists were producing works of art which satisfied the dem ands of
the local clientele. M oreover, it is possible to infer that the same artists or workshops
m anufactured sometimes for Jew s, C hristians and pagans. Some artists m ay have
been non-Jews working for a mixed clientele, using pattern books favoured by each
of the different arts and religions. Similar designs would be used in all cases, but
specific symbols for each client would be added to the synagogue or church mosaic
pavem ent or chancel screen.
B . P attern B ooks
T he consistent and frequent use of identical compositions, motifs and patterns,
and the wide range of themes found in mosaic art, sculpture and funerary art suggest
the existence and use in antiquity of pattern books or sketch books (Avi-Yonah
1981b: 375; 1960a: 21; K itzinger 1965b: 7; D auphin 1978). Furtherm ore, the
designs, which were often depicted in a stereotyped m anner, have been found at
various sites widely separated in distance and time. The zodiac is an example of this
phenom enon. In addition, the widespread use of zoological and botanical subjects
which could hardly have been known at first hand from nature, also proves that
m any themes and motifs were codified into pattern books which were passed on from
generation to generation.
From an analysis of the existing m aterial it is possible to surmise that the pattern
books were arranged as discussed below, according to two criteria: composition and
general subjects. It is very probable that these books which included designs, motifs
and patterns were inherited by the artists’ families. If this is so it m ight explain the
tim e range of some of the themes.
1) Pattern books for mosaic pavements
a) A client desiring an artist to create and construct a mosaic floor would be shown
various pattern books from which he could choose a combination of designs accord­
ing to his wishes, or the wishes of the com m unity he represented. Each pattern book
would contain all the designs for a specific purpose, for example, for a whole room,
for a border, for a specific motif, and so on. These pattern books would be divided
into the following topics: books which comprise compositions showing the basic
layout of an entire pavem ent, or designs for complete rooms of various sizes (long,
square), or compositions for geometric or floral carpets (N acaran, Huseifa, H am ­
m ath G ader, Jericho, figs. X I .4, 5, 12, 13), or inhabited scrolls designs (M acon,
Gaza, Beth She^an B, figs. IX .41-43).
392 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY
A (9 B I
b) Sketch books for pavem ent borders (Avi-Yonah 1981b: 285). These include
geometric designs such as the guilloche (Beth 3Alpha, House of Leontis, fig. 3:B2
and Pis. 68-70, 102), the five- or six-strand guilloche (H am m ath G ader, H am m ath
Tiberias, Beth She^an A, N acaran, figs. 3:B6, B13; X I .1, 2, 4, 12) and the wave-
strands (T orah shrine panel border in Beth She3an A, N acaran, bottom border of
the G aza David mosaic, figs. 3:B7; X I .4 and Pis. 67, 103). O ther interesting recurr­
ing border patterns include a fret with square “ peopled” panels (fig. 3:A19) at
Susiya and M a coz H ayim (Pis. 75, 95), and interlacing flowers pointing alternately
inwards and outwards in the M acon border (PI. 87), and in some of the circles of
the frontal carpet at N acaran (figs. 3:B9, X I .4; Avi-Yonah, 1960b: 25, note 1, dates
this design appearance to the fifth century).
c) Sketch files for various motifs:
i) Birds and beasts. These were actually botanical and zoological catalogues which
were influenced by Hellenistic interest in the natural sciences and by the existence
of the gardens of the Ptolemies (Avi-Yonah 1960a: 21; D auphin 1978: 408 (dealing
only with mosaic inhabited scrolls pavements)).
ii) Geom etric designs, objects, plants, fruits and architectural motifs.
iii) H um ans.
These sketch files or pattern books m ay have been used by craftsmen of sculpture
as well as by mosaicists, although pattern books for mosaicists were probably m uch
richer in variety of codified motifs. This is dem onstrated by the inhabited scroll
pavements in both synagogues and churches (figs. I X .41-43 and the front carpet of
N acaran, fig. X I. 11), as well as by some floors which exhibit calalogues of birds,
such as the Beth She^an m onastery chapel G (Fitzgerald 1939: PI. X IV ).
d) Pattern files for narrative scenes such as hunting, village and rural life, attested
to by the vintage scenes characteristic of C hristian floors (see, for instance, room L
of the Beth She3an m onastery, PI. 107). [It is noteworthy that only one vintage scene
is found am ong all the synagogue ornam entation: the Chorazin frieze fragm ent (PL
ARTISTS AND PATTERN BOOKS 393
47).] Few rural scenes are depicted on synagogue pavements: a hen lays an egg at
M a con (fig. X .34b), and a hen and chicks, and a figure holding a goose are found
in the nave border scroll at Beth 3Alpha (fig. X .33a, b).
e) Sketch files for other motifs which were either popular or possessed symbolic
connotations. These were especially distinguished and m ay have been contained in
a separate sketch book, or m ay have belonged to an existing file of catalogues for
birds and animals. These motifs include: the anim al chase (figs. IX .33b, 42; X .15;
p. 339), birds pecking grapes (also on lintels at C horazin, Dikke and Kanef, see
p. 337 figs. V III.52i, j; X .27), the bird cage, the peacock with open tail, the peacock
rendered en-face with spread feathers (fig. X .29) the bird of prey and the eagle,
depicted frontally (figs. X . 22, 23). All these motifs occur on both synagogue and
church pavements.
f) Sketch books for heraldic motifs, used constantly by Jews for sculpture and
mosaic pavem ents, but also by Christians and pagans. These files possibly had sket­
ches depicting: a w reath flanked by different objects or figures such as eagles and
Nikae (figs. V III.45, 46; X .l) , lions flanking a vase, or bulls’ heads (figs. X .4, 6,
7, 16; p. 329); ram s or sheep flanking am phorae (Beth She^an synagogue B, fig.
IX .42), the T orah shrine and m enoroth panel (Susiya, PI. 104), or a plant (N acaran,
fig. X . l 7); these were used also in synagogue architectural ornam entation as well
as in funerary art. M any of these heraldic motifs also occur on church mosaic floors.
For example, churches in the town of Nebo have mosaics with animals facing each
other with either a vase or plants between them (Sailer and Bagatti 1949: Pis. 14:1;
20; 21:1; 28:1; 30:1; 34:1; 37:3; 39:2; Sailer 1941: Pis. 105: 1-2; 109:1, which is
the only example of animals flanking a sanctuary in church mosaics).
g) Copy books for mythological themes used not only by pagans, but also by Jews
and Christians. Jew ish examples include motifs in synagogue architectural or­
nam entation (Pis. 45, 46 and fig. X .21) and on the mosaic floor in the House of
Leontis at Beth She^an (fig. IX . 37). C hristian examples include the H aditha mosaic
floor (Avi-Yonah 1972), and depictions of O rpheus in m any paintings, carvings and
mosaics including a Jerusalem church floor (Barash 1980: figs. 4-21). The same
them e in synagogues occurs on the G aza mosaic floor: David depicted as O rpheus,
and in the D ura Europos synagogue painting (Pis. 66, 67; fig. I X .36).
2) Jewish Pattern Books
It m ay be confidently assumed that pattern books existed containing uniquely
Jew ish subjects; these subjects m ay be divided into the following topics:
394 JEW ISH ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE ANTIQ UITY
a) Codified files (for mosaic pavements) consisting of complete floor designs divisi­
ble into smaller units. This feature is characteristic of m any of the synagogue
pavements: H am m ath Tiberias, Beth 5Alpha, Beth She5an A, Jericho, Susiya,
N acaran, Huseifa and H am m ath G ader (figs. X I. 1-5, 9-13).
b) Files of mosaic pavem ent panel compositions which have different motifs, such
as the T orah shrine panel including m enoroth and ritual objects (H am m ath
Tiberias, Beth 5Alpha, Susiya, Beth She5an A, N acaran, Pis. 101-105), the zodiac
panel (fig. I X .39-40; p. 305ff.) and panels of inscriptions flanked by animals
(H am m ath G ader, H am m ath Tiberias, Beth 5Alpha, Beth She5an B, (fig. X I .14;
p. 361).
c) Special sketch books for Jew ish motifs and symbols intended to decorate
synagogue floors, architecture and other objects, as well as to ornam ent funerary a r­
ticles. These sketch books probably contained the m enorah, ritual objects, the Ark,
the conch and the zodiac. Sometimes a group of these symbols is added to a
synagogue pavem ent which otherwise, depicts a fashionable design such as the in­
habited scrolls (see M acon and Beth She5an synagogue B, figs. IX .41, 42). It may
be assumed that particular animals were also included in these sketch books, due to
their symbolic connotations, for example, lions and eagles rendered either singly or
in heraldic fashion.
d) Sketch books of Biblical scenes, considered by some scholars to have derived
from illustrated m anuscripts (see p. 288). They probably contained models of Biblical
cycles, condensed and conflated into scenes which could be depicted in confined
spaces (also W eitzm ann 1957: 89-90).
M osaic rem ains testify to the frequent use of these Jew ish pattern books which
would have been used by the Jew ish com m unity when deciding upon synagogue or­
nam entation. The artists themselves, consequently, need not necessarily have been
Jewish.
D auphin (1978: 408) proposes that these sketch books consisted of one sketch of
one particular subject, such as one type of bird or anim al, per page. These would
be typologically arranged in separate files, and each workshop or artist would possess
at least one complete set of files.
The best evidence proving the existence of such sketch books is the zodiac panel
design (figs. I X .39, 40) which occurs on at least four synagogue mosaic pavements
widely separated in space and tim e (the H am m ath Tiberias mosaic is dated to the
fourth century whereas the Beth 5Alpha and N acaran mosaics are dated to the sixth
century). The scheme as well as the content of these four mosaics is identical and
is only found in Jew ish art (figs. I X ,38, Pis. 71-74). Differences am ong them of style
ARTISTS A ND PATTERN BOOKS 395
and execution are to be im puted to the variability of the individual artists’ skill and
style. Exactly the same explanation m ay be given about the T orah shrine panel (Pis.
101-105). Thus, this uniform ity of form and content can only be a result of models
being taken from sketch books.
A further justification for the existence of such sketch books is that size of animals
or objects is always uniform without any consideration for actual proportion. The
inhabited scrolls pavem ent at M acon, for instance, shows similar-sized birds and
elephants; they all are m ade to fit the medallions, suggesting that any particular a r­
tist did not interpret the draw ing but simply copied it (fig. IX .41; PL 87). (The eight
pavem ents with the inhabited scroll designs, proposed by Avi-Yonah (198Id) to
belong to the “ School of G a z a ,” actually prove the existence of pattern books which
included this specific design; these pavem ents, in fact, differ in m any stylistic details
(see Hachlili 1987), suggesting that various artists executed the same chosen
designs.)
An interesting question concerns the identity of those who actually chose the p at­
terns. Some scholars suggest that the artist chose the details of the composition and
motifs after a general order had been given (D auphin 1978: 408-409). O n the other
hand, it seems more likely that the patron was free to choose whatever he liked from
the pattern books and sketch files. The appearance of Jew ish symbols and designs
in Jew ish synagogal and funerary art attest to the involvement of the donors and the
com m unity, and perhaps also of the artists, in choosing the layout, composition and
motifs, m uch assisted by the Jew ish pattern books. This m ust have been also true
of local workshops which produced chancel screens with Jew ish symbols on them for
synagogues and with C hristian symbols on them for churches (see p. 190 fig. V III.32).
Jew s m ust have sometimes chosen patterns from general pattern books that served
C hristians as well. This would explain the similarity of the inhabited scrolls pattern
depicted on synagogue pavem ents as well as on church floors (figs. IX .41-43; Pl.
86). W henever the Jew s wanted to add specific significance to an ornam ented floor,
however, they would insert Jew ish symbols, for instance, at M acon and Beth She5an
B (fig. IX .41-42; Pis. 85, 87). These symbols would clearly indicate the difference
between Jew ish and C hristian floors, and would emphasize the function of the
building, that it was a synagogue. O ne can also infer that Jew ish houses were
decorated according to the taste of the owners, with patterns or motifs chosen from
a general pattern book, and with little desire for expressions of Judaism : for example
in the House of Leontis at Beth She5an the floor is m ainly decorated with a
mythological scene, with only a small five-branched m enorah inserted into the in­
scription (PL 69).However, synagogues were treated differently: in them , Jew ish
symbols were of necessity displayed prom inently.

C H A PT E R SIX TEEN
D A T IN G O F T H E SY NA GOG UES
D ating of synagogues is based on m aterial rem ains and excavation data such as
inscriptions, coins, pottery, architecture, and art, as well as on historical considera­
tions. The most reliable evidence for dating of synagogues consists of inscriptions,
which supply accurate dates for the construction or restoration of synagogue
buildings. However, only three inscriptions have been found in synagogue buildings
which provide absolute dates:
1) The Hebrew inscription on the N abratein lintel (Pl. 108). The synagogue was
built 494 years after the destruction of the Tem ple, that is, in 564 CE (Avigad
1960a; Naveh 1978: 4-6).
2) A Greek dedicatory inscription within a medallion in the pavem ent of the
southernm ost aisle of the G aza synagogue (Pl. 86a) m entions the year 569 of the era
of G aza, that is, 508/9 CE (Avi-Yonah 1966).
3) The reign of the em peror Ju stin ian I (518-527 CE) is m entioned in the Aram aic
inscription of the Beth 5Alpha mosaic floor (fig. X I. 14c) (Naveh 1978: 72-73). The
same artists executed a room in Beth She5an A synagogue, which is thus dated to
the same period (p. 385).
Several other inscriptions have been found which furnish dates by inference: the
Beth She5an B small synagogue should be dated to about the m id-sixth century, as
its mosaic pavem ent was probably executed by the same mosaicist who worked in
room L of the Beth Ske^an m onastery (see p. 390 Pis. 85, 107), which is dated by in­
scription to 567-569 CE (Fitzgerald 1939: 1, 9, 16). A Greek inscription from
5Ascalon dating to 604 CE (Lifshitz 1967: no. 70) is known but no synagogue has
yet been found. At D abbura in the Golan, a lintel is carved with an inscription (fig.
V III.46b) m entioning R . Eliezar h a ‫־‬Q appar, head of a school, a famous T annaitic
sage who lived at the end of the second-early third centuries.
An interesting votive inscription was found at Kasyon (Galilee) during the nine­
teenth century and was never seen again until Ju n e 1984, when it was rediscovered
by the author and Z. M aoz (Pl. 109). This inscription, carved on a lintel face whose
left part is missing, comm emorates a dedication by the Jew s of a building in honour
of Septimius Severus, thus dated to 197 CE. Kohl and W atzinger (1916: 209)
discuss the Kasyon inscription but conclude that Kasyon was a pagan temple. It is
difficult to determ ine the plan of this building, which seems to be atypical of
DATING OF TH E SYNAGOGUES 397
synagogal architecture. (But see Foerster 1972: 103-105). Further excavation is re­
quired, however, to determ ine if the Kasyon building is in fact a synagogue, as well
as to discover the missing left part of the newly rediscovered lintel as it probably
m entions what type of building the Jew s dedicated to Severus (whether synagogue
or tem ple).
Dates given by inscriptions, found in the excavated synagogue buildings there­
fore, all pertain to the sixth century as it is not yet clear w hether the Kasyon inscrip­
tion belongs to a synagogue, and no synagogue has yet been found at D abbura.
Coins found in m any excavations offer another m eans of providing dates for the
construction, reconstruction and restoration of m any synagogues. The Golan
synagogues of cEn Neshut, Kanef, and K azrin are dated by coins to the fifth-sixth
centuries (M aoz 1980: 24). cEn Gedi (Barag et al. 1981: 119) and R im m on
synagogues (K loner 1983b: 67-69) have various levels which are dated by coins. In
the Galilean synagogues, coins determ ine the dating of G ush H alav (M eyers et al.
1979: 45; 1981: 75, 77) and N abratein (rebuilding of synagogue III in the sixth cen­
tury, M eyers et al. 1982: 36). At cA m m udim coins and pottery date the synagogue
to the late third and early fourth centuries (Levine 1981: 80-81). At Chorazin coins
of two groups were found (M eshorer 1973): a) those dated 134-340 CE; and b) those
dated 390-early fifth century; thus dating C horazin to the third-fourth century, with
a fifty year gap 340-390 CE. C horazin is m entioned by Eusebius as being in ruins
at the beginning of the fourth century (Yeivin 1973: 157) (See table 2 for dating of
each synagogue).
T he most spirited debate am ong scholars concerns the date of the Galilean
synagogues, and C apernaum in particular. The Galilean synagogues of M eiron,
G ush H alav, N abratein II, Shem ca and cA m m udim were erected in the late third
century. M eiron was abandoned in 360 CE, Shem ca was destroyed by an earth­
quake in 419 CE, whereas G ush H alav thrived until the mid-sixth century (Meyers
1981b: 77). Several of the Galilean synagogues, it is asserted, were destroyed by the
earthquakes of 306, 363, and 419 (Russel 1980) and were subsequently restored.
T he latest finds from C apernaum date the construction of the synagogue to the
end of the fourth- early fifth centuries (Corbo 1975: 113-169; Loffreda 1973, 1981).
This is based on pottery and coins found in the fill under the pavem ent of the
synagogue (see the discussion of the C apernaum dating in Loffreda 1981; cf.
Foerster (1981b) and Avi-Yonah (198If) who contend that due to architectural,
stylistic and historical considerations, C apernaum is to be dated to the second-third
centuries (also Chen 1980a).
Architectural, artistic and stylistic considerations offer dating data as well. For ex­
ample, the m ain feature of synagogal architecture, the T orah shrine, changed its
398 JEW ISH ART A ND ARCHAEOLOGY IN LATE A N TIQ UITY
form during the various periods. The aedicula is the earliest form of T orah shrine
but even so persisted until the sixth century in several synagogues. The development
of the niche took place in the early fourth century. The apse was a completely new
innovation, constructed in synagogues erected during the sixth century (see p. 180).
Therefore synagogues including apses (with the exception of the Golan and Galilee
synagogues, none of which have apses) m ust be dated to the sixth century. (The
synagogues with apses at H am m ath G ader III and M acoz H ayim II may possibly
have been built by the late fifth century.)
O rnam entation of the synagogues is also taken into consideration for dating p u r­
poses: mosaic floors already appear in the late third century (H am m ath Tiberias B
level I, cE n‫־‬Gedi I, H . cA m m udim , pp. 222-223), even though at that time they only
display geometric designs, whereas from the fourth century on, mosaic pavements
also portray figurative art (H am m ath Tiberias B level Ila zodiac, PI. 71, M arous,
fig. V III.57, pi. 48). Representational art appears in the fourth century in architec­
tural decoration also, thus providing dates for C apernaum , Chorazin and other
synagogal figurative sculpture (such as the N abratein aedicula lintel, and
cA m m udim synagogue facade lintel, figs. V III. 12, 18). The Biblical scenes depicted
on mosaic floors are dated to the fifth century (Gerasa) and the sixth century (Beth
3Alpha and N acaran).
T he destruction of the images in the N aaran synagogue is probably to be dated
to the late sixth century, due to iconoclasm contem porary with a them atic change
to inscriptions, and floral and geometric designs which replaced figurative art in
mosaic pavements. T he destruction of figurative sculpture at C apernaum is usually
explained as being due to Jew ish iconoclasts (cf. K W 1916: 202). However, in the
C horazin and other Golan synagogues, the sculpture has survived in complete form.
This phenom enon therefore m ight be explained by the brittleness of limestone
sculpture, which is m ore easily destroyed than the hard basalt reliefs.
A rchitectural ornam entation of carved lintels, friezes, and architraves is a com ­
m on feature of the northern part of the Land of Israel, as well as of Syria. T he art
is local with O riental elements dom inant; even the classical forms are interpreted in
a local accent, which makes it difficult to date stylistically: local tradition would have
been strong enough to retain a style for several generations of craftsmen and
masons. This is proved by the Galilean and Golan synagogues, similar in plan, a r­
chitectural features and ornam entation style, although dated to periods from the late
third until the seventh centuries.
An example of this chronological difficulty is to be found in lintel type I,
characteristic of several of the Galilean synagogues such as 3Arbel, Barcam, M eiron,
G ush Halav and N abratein, figs. V III.43, 44; p. 206). The similarity of their
DATING OF TH E SYNAGOGUES 399
m ouldings, decoration and size should indicate a corresponding date in the late third
century for the construction of all these synagogues’ facades. However, these lintels
continue to decorate the synagogue facades throughout the life of the synagogues—
until the fourth century at M eiron and at least until the sixth century at Gush Halav.
T hus, the dating of the N abratein lintel to phase II is arbitrary. The sixth century
inscription was added to the lintel in phase III (as suggested by Avigad 1960).
M oreover, by the time N abratein III was rebuilt, as indicated by the inscription,
that is in 564 CE, Gush H alav had already been destroyed (551 CE). (The Dikke
synagogue side entrance lintel fragm ent also belongs to type I. This may indicate
a fourth century date for the construction of this synagogue, or even later, if an
earlier model from the Galilee synagogues was employed in the m oulding.)
After considering the data presented and the excavation reports published during
the last decade, we m ay sum up the following (see table 2):
The only synagogue dated by excavation to the late second century is N abratein
I. Synagogues constructed in the late third century include: cA m m udim , Gush
H alav, M eiron, N abratein II, Shem ca, H am m ath Tiberias IIB, Caesarea, cE n‫־‬Gedi
and R im m on I (it is possible to include 3Arbel and B arcam here). Some of these
synagogues were paved with mosaics.
Synagogues erected in the fourth century include: C apernaum , Chorazin,
M arous, M a coz H ayim , Rehov, 3Eshtem oca and Susiya. M ost of these synagogues
possessed mosaic floors. Several synagogues were rebuilt and restored: Gush H alav
II, H am m ath Tiberias II A with its mosaic floor and R im m on II.
Synagogues erected in the fifth century include: probably most of the Golan
synagogues (table 2), Beth She3an A and Gerasa. Restored and reconstructed
synagogues include M acoz H ayim II, Rehov II , C aesarea and probably H am m ath
G ader III.
Synagogues constructed during the sixth century include: Beth 3Alpha, Beth
She3an B, M a con, Gaza, Jericho and N acaran. These all have elaborately decorated
mosaic pavem ents, and each contains an apse. C ontem porarily restored synagogues
include N abratein III, G ush H alav II continues in use, H am m ath Tiberias III,
M a coz H ayim III, Rehov III, Susiya II, R im m on III and cE n‫־‬Gedi III. M ost of
these synagogues continued into the early seventh century, and most were probably
destroyed during the Persian occupation or during the A rab Conquest.
In conclusion, synagogues in the Land of Israel were constructed continuously
during the Rom an-B yzantine periods. Synagogue construction seems to be most
prolific during two periods: during the mid or late third and early fourth centuries
when most of the Galilean synagogues were erected; and during the sixth century,
400 JEW ISH ART A ND ARCHEOLOG Y IN LATE ANTIQ UITY

when m any of the characteristic Byzantine synagogues were built. Each synagogue
consequently should be· exam ined separately to determ ine its date, by analysis of the
data revealed by its excavation, and by its artistic style and historical context. C H A PT E R SEVENTEEN

C O N C L U S IO N S

Jew ish art and architecture (as defined in this book) flourished in two distinctive
periods: the first is that of the Second Tem ple, and the second is the period of Late
Antiquity. Differences between these two periods are significant, and are prim arily
political and social. D uring the Second Tem ple period the Land of Israel was a
Jew ish state having a central Tem ple in Jerusalem . The ruling classes although
Hellenized, retained parts of their faith and laws. The art of the period, shows con­
nections with the neighbouring G raeco-R om an culture. At the same time Jew ish art
withstood foreign influences by evolving strictly aniconic features; it is characterized
together with the other arts of the period by highly skilled indigenous stonework, by
the predom inant O riental elements of endless patterns, by the element of horror vacui,
by plasticity of carving and by symmetrical stylization.
Jew ish art of the Second Tem ple period concentrates on extensive architectural
projects consisting of large complexes and structures, not only in Jerusalem where
the Tem ple itself was rebuilt, but also throughout the country in m ajor winter and
sum m er palace complexes, in a m agnificent harbour and other architectural installa­
tions. This art also includes the ornam entation and embellishment of such struc­
tures, as well as of funerary structures such as tombs, sarcophagi and ossuaries. The
strictly aniconic and non-symbolic art characterizing the Second Tem ple period is
the outcome of Ju d a ism ’s struggle against paganism and idolatry. By the rigid ob­
servance of the prohibition against anim ate images, the Jews retained their own
identity and distinctiveness.
T he aniconic and non-symbolic quality of the art of the Second Tem ple period
completely disappears during the period of Late A ntiquity. In Late A ntiquity, art
and architecture are influenced by political and social changes in the Land of Israel,
m ost particularly by the destruction of the Tem ple and the removal of the centre of
Jew ish life to the Galilee. The prevailing architectural structure is now the
synagogue, which replaces the Tem ple as the centre of Jew ish religious, national and
social life. In addition, the decline of paganism and the rise and expansion of C hris­
tianity causes a change in the Jewish attitude towards its art; it now expresses its or­
nam entation and decorative architecture by figurative and symbolic means. W ith
the destruction of the Tem ple, a need for a concrete visual image becomes strongly
felt. Thus, only during this period do the Tem ple implements take on a symbolic
402 CO NCLUSIONS
significance in synagogal and funerary art. The art of the period of Late A ntiquity
is an expression of Jew ish comm unal and local life, in contrast to the national spirit
of the Second Tem ple period art.
A continuation and connection m ay be traced between the arts of the two different
periods, the Second Tem ple period and that of Late Antiquity:
1) The traditon of relief and sculptured architecture continues in Late A ntiquity
and in a lim ited m anner follows the decorative style of Second Tem ple period art.
2) T here is a continuation of the tradition of floral and geometric motifs which
characterize Second Tem ple period art, especially the rosette which is its most prom ­
inent motif. This m ay have been due to traditional pattern books which were kept
and handed down from generation to generation.
3) Stylistic tendencies such as symmetrical stylization, tripartite division of a r­
chitectural ornam entation, and O riental elements are basic features of the art of
both periods.
4) Vestiges of the Tem ple, its architecture, ritual and ceremony can be detected
in Jew ish art of Late Antiquity: symbolic art uses the m enorah and the ritual utensils
as rem inders of the Tem ple vessels and ceremonies; as well as the priestly course lists
on stone slabs found in several synagogues.
5) Distinguishing features of Jew ish art such as the unidentical symm etry and u n ­
finished funerary art can be seen already in the art of the Second Tem ple period but
are m ore prevalent in the Jew ish art of Late Antiquity.
Thus spiritual and religious tendencies expressed in stylistic features and motifs
in the art of the Second Tem ple period continue into the art of the Jew s in Late A n­
tiquity.
An im portant innovation of Jew ish art in Late A ntiquity consists of the construc­
tion of the synagogue and its art and architecture. The synagogue plan was deter­
m ined by the prom inent place of the T orah shrine on the Jerusalem -oriented wall
which in turn established the arrangem ent of the interior of the synagogue and its
orientation. Synagogue ornam entation was determ ined by the local com m unity but
surrounding cultural influences did have a strong attraction: for instance, the facade
decoration of Galilean and Golan synagogues is influenced by the style and execu­
tion of the neighbouring Syrian-H auran architecture. By comparison, the mosaic
pavem ent of the synagogue is an expression of an established art tradition which
depicts its nave ornam entation in a program m ed style, using certain iconographical
themes for the panels. These characteristic features of synagogue architecture and
decoration are distinctive in Jew ish art of Late A ntiquity and helped Judaism in
CO NCLUSIONS 403
m aintaining its identity in a world of C hristian expansion and the decline of
paganism .
Jew ish art contains a symbolic vocabulary consisting of the m enorah, the ritual
objects (the shofar, incense shovel, ethrog and lulav), the Ark of the Scrolls and the
conch. A cquiring their symbolic significance and prom inence in the arts only after
the destruction of the Tem ple, they thus preserve its m em ory by expressing a
rem em brance of the Tem ple and its ceremonies. O ther images were borrowed from
Jew ish religious life and tradition, such as Biblical scenes, and the zodiac which in­
terpreted the yearly calendar by a depiction of the four seasons, the twelve m onths,
day and night, thus turning it into an elaborate, visual and expressive scheme. The
ornam entation of synagogue floors is expressed in a scheme of panels firmly related
to the iconography portrayed in them . It is an original, organized scheme, which
determ ined each panel’s allotted place and iconographical theme: for example, the
T orah shrine and m enoroth m otif is depicted on the panel closest to the actual T orah
shrine; while carpets of vine trellis medallions had the addition of Jew ish symbols.
Jew ish society from the third century on allowed representational art which por­
trayed figurative and symbolic themes. M oreover, even the H and of God was con­
sidered a fit subject to be figuratively represented; it was placed within the Sacrifice
of Isaac pavem ent, at Beth 5Alpha, which was continually being trodden upon. This
liberal attitude lasted only until the second half of the sixth century. W ith increased
anti-Jewish legislation, aniconic art was resum ed, and iconoclastic deeds are en­
countered on the N acaran mosaic pavem ent, where the images are eradicated. The
later synagogues of Jericho and cE n‫־‬Gedi portray non-figurative, purely decorative
designs. This is in accordance with the contrasting attitudes to art displayed
throughout Late A ntiquity by the Jew s and Christians in the Land of Israel.
W henever churches would display aniconic art, the Jew s would depict iconography
on their synagogue pavements. Subsequently, in the later sixth century, when chur­
ches began to display images on their floors, the Jew s returned to the prohibition
against hum an and anim al images in their art.
Stylistically the tendencies displayed by Jew ish art can be seen to be part of an
O riental art of the period and the area, similar to a certain extent to other
neighbouring arts, such as N abatean and Palm yrene art. Reliefs and sculpture did
not constitute an art by themselves and their prim ary function was solely as architec­
tural decoration, within which they formed a whole together with other architectural
elements. Figurative representation appears in compositions of scenes where the
figures bear no relation to each other and where they are sometimes represented side
by side (see for instance Beth 5Alpha, the Sacrifice of Isaac). Static groups are
rendered lacking any dram atic tension. The mythological representations are not
404 CO NCLUSIONS

depicted in a narrative' story, but rather in a series of separate renditions showing

no connection between them (see the House of Leontis at Beth She^an). The style
of figurative rendition is usually in an hierarchic and impersonal m anner. This im ­ BIBLIOGRAPHY
pression is frequently emphasized by the unusually large size of the figures’ eyes.
Representations of hum ans lack any personal features; the posture is static and two-
A lföldi-R osenb aum , E.
dimensional, and the whole figure is schematically rendered.
1975 A N ilotic Scene on Justian ic Floor M osaics in C yrenaican churches. La Mosaïque
Jew ish art is an example of an art lacking figurative tradition, a weakly-developed Greco-Romaine II: 149-153. Paris.
visual sense, and an environm ent with strong external cultural influences. It is based A vigad, N .
on the ability and skill with which the artists related to the needs and requirem ents 1950-51 T h e R ock-carved Facades o f the Jerusalem N ecropolis. IE J 1:96-109.
1954a R em ains o f A ncient Jew ish Art in the G alilee. E l 7: 18-23 (H ebrew ).
of their clientele whose prerequisites were based m ainly on decorative demands. 1954b Ancient Monuments in the Kidron Valley. Jerusalem (H ebrew ).
Them es and designs in ancient art are often derived from copy books of patterns, 1956 T he N ecropolis. Sepher Yerushalayim (ed. M . A vi-Y onah): 320-335, (H ebrew ).
some of which probably served both synagogues and churches, and some of which 1960a A D ated Lintel-inscription from the A n cient Synagogue o f N abratein. Bulletin
Rabinowitz III: 49-56. Jerusalem .
presum ably were traditional pattern books passed on from generation to generation. 1960b A n Aram aic Inscription from the Synagogue at U m m el-cA m ed in G alilee. Bulletin
There were, very possibly, special pattern books for the Jew ish clientele, including Rabinowitz III: 62-64. Jerusalem .
unique designs and symbols. These designs most probably included am ong them the 1962 T h e m osaic pavem ent o f the Beth 3A lpha synagogue and its place in the history o f
Jew ish Art. Beth She^an Valley: 63-70 (the 17th A rchaeology C on ven tion ). (H ebrew ).
unidentical symmetric pattern. 1967 O n the Form o f A n cient Synagogues in G alilee. A ll the Land of Naphtali: 91-100.
T he assum ption is postulated here that the selection of symbols and subjects for Jerusalem (H ebrew ).
synagogue ornam entation was deliberately limited. They were chosen by the Jew ish 1975 T h e A rchitecture o f Jerusalem in the Second T em ple Period. Jerusalem Revealed, (ed.
Y. Yadin): 14-20.
com m unity and by its donors, who m ade their choice from available pattern books. 1976 Beth Shecarim III·. C atacom bs 12-23. Jerusalem .
C ertain original aspects of ancient Jew ish art which continually occur could be ex­ 1981 T h e G alilean Synagogue and its predecessors. A S R : 42-44.
1983 Discovering Jerusalem. Jerusalem .
plained as being the result of the specific needs of the Jew ish com m unity, of its trad i­
A vigad, N . et al.
tions, and of artists’ innovations. 1961 T h e Expedition to the Ju d ean D esert, 1960. IE J 11: 3-72.
Jew ish art was essentially a decorative art with both ornam ental and iconographic 1962 T h e Expedition to the Ju d ean D esert, 1961. IE J 12: 167-262.
A vi-Y on ah, M .
functions. It was an art which consisted of an indigenous local tradition, with at the
1934 A Sixth-C entury Synagogue at Isfiya. QD AP 3: 118-131.
same time appropriations from the surrounding G raeco-R om an and Christian 1956 T h e Second T em ple. The Book of Jerusalem I: 392-418. Jerusalem (H ebrew ).
cultures; it possessed an O riental style, and was characterized by the use of specific 1957 Places o f W orship in the R om an and B yzantine Periods. Antiquity and Survival 3: 262-
272. T h e H ague.
symbols, motifs and iconography. Despite those elements borrowed from
1960a Israeli Mosaics: 15-24. U n esco.
neighbouring cultures, however, Jew ish art retained within it the fundam ental 1960b T he M osaic P avem ent o f M a con (N irim ). Bulletin Rabinowitz III: 25-35.
beliefs, customs and traditions of the Jew ish people. 1961a Synagogue A rchitecture in the Classical Period. Jewish A rt: 155-190. (ed. C. R oth).
1961b Oriental Art in Roman Palestine. R om e.
1964 T he C aesarea Inscription o f the T w enty-F our Priestly C ourses. The Teacher’s Yoke:
Studies in Memory of Henry Trantham: 46-57. T exas.
1966 A n A ncient Synagogue at G aza. B IE S 30: 221-223 (H ebrew ).
1968 T he Facade o f H ero d ’s T em p le, A n A ttem pted R econstruction. Religions in Antiquity,
Essays in Memory of E .R . Goodenough: 327-334. (ed. J . N eusner). Leiden.
1972 T h e H aditha M osaic P avem ent. IE J 22: 118-122.
1973 G ood en ou gh ’s E valuation o f the D u ra Paintings: A C ritique. The Dura-Europos
Synagogue: A Re-evaluation (1932-1972): 117-135. (ed. J . G utm ann). M ontana.
1975 Ancient Mosaics. L ondon.
1981a O riental Elem ents in the Art o f Palestine in the R om an and Byzantine Periods. Art
in Ancient Palestine. Selected Studies: 1-117. Jerusalem .
406 BIBLIO G RAPH Y BIBLIO G RAPH Y 407

1981b M osaic P avem ents in Palestine. Art in Ancient Palestine. Selected Studies: 283-382. B ratschkova, M .
Jerusalem . 1938 D ie M uschel in der antiken K unst. Bulletin de VInstitut Archaeologique Bulgare 11: 1-131.
1981c La M osaïque Ju ive dans ses relations avec la m osaïque classique. Art in Ancient Broshi, M .
Palestine. Selected Studies: 383-388. Jerusalem . 1975 Excavation in the H ou se o f C aiaphas, M ou n t Zion. Jerusalem Revealed: 57-70 (ed. Y .
198Id U n e Ecole de m osaïque a G aza au sixiem e siecle. Art in Ancient Palestine. Selected Y adin). Jerusalem .
Studies: 389-395. Jerusalem . 1981 T h e C ities o f Eretz-Israel in the H erodian Period. Qadmoniot 14: 70-79 (H ebrew ).
1981e Le Sym bolism e du Zodiaque dans l ’art Jud e-B yzantine. Art in Ancient Palestine. Brown, D .F .
Selected Studies: 396-397. Jerusalem . 1942 T h e A rcuated Lintel and Its Sym bolic Interpretation. AJA 44: 391-398.
1981 f N otes on R ecent E xcavations at C apernaum . ^4«S7?:60-62. Budde, L.
1981 g T h e M osaics o f M opsu estia - Church or Synagogue? ASR: 186-190. 1969 Antike Mosaiken in Kilikien I. R ecklinghausen.
1981h A n cient Synagogues. Art in Ancient Palestine: 271-281. Bull, R .J. c
A vi-Y on ah, M ., A vigad, N ., A haroni, Y ., D u nayevsk i, I. and G utm an, S. 1982 C aesarea M aritim a — T he Search for H er o d ’s C ity. B AR 8: 24-40.
1957 M asada, Survey and E xcavations, 1955-1956. IE J 1. Butler, H .C .
Baccache, E. and T chalenko. G. 1903 Architecture and Other Arts. N ew York.
1979-1980 Eglises de Village de La Syrie du Nord. T ext and Plates. 1915-1919 Ancient Architecture in Syria V , V I, V II. Leiden.
Bahat, D . 1923 N abatean T em ple Plans and Plans o f Syrian Churches. Studien Zur Kunst Des Ostens:
1973 A Synagogue C hancel-Screen from T el R ehob . IE J 23: 181-183. 9-18. V ien n a.
1981a A Synagogue at Beth-She-’a n . ASR: 82-85. 1929 Early Churches in Syria. Princeton.
1981b D a v id ’s T ow er and its nam e in Second T em ple T im es. E l 15: 396-400 (H ebrew ). C hiat, M .J.
Bahat, D ., and Broshi, M . 1979 A Corpus of Synagogue Art and Architecture in Roman and Byzantine Palestine I-IV . T hesis.
1975 E xcavations in the A rm enian G arden. Jerusalem Revealed'. 55-56. (ed. Y. Y adin). U n iversity M icrofilm International.
Jerusalem . 1981 First-century Synagogue Architecture: M ethodological Problem s. Ancient Synagogues,
Baity, J . the State of Research, ed. J . G utm ann. A n n Arbor.
1981 La M osaïque antique au P roche-O rient. A u f steig und Niedergang der Römischen Welt II: C hen, D .
12.2: 347-429. Berlin. N ew -Y ork. 1978 T h e D esign o f the A ncient Synagogues in G alilee I. Liber Annuus 28: 193-202.
Bar-A don, P. 1980a T he D esign o f the A ncient Synagogues in G alilee II. Liber Annuus 30: 255-258.
1977 A nother Settlem ent o f the Ju d ean D esert Sect at cEn el-G huw eir on the D ead Sea. 1980b T he D esign o f the A ncient Synagogues in Judea: M asada and H erodium . BASOR
BASOR 227: 1-25. 239: 37-40.
Barag, D . C ohen, R .
1977 M a con. Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, vol. Ill: 333-334. 1980 T he M arvelous M osaics o f K issufim . B AR 6: 16-23.
Jerusalem . Corbo. V .
Barag, D ., Porat, Y ., and N etzer, E. 1963 L ’H erodion D i G ebal Fureidis. Liber Annuus 13: 219-277.
1981 T he Syn agogue at cE n-G edi. ASR: 116-119. 1975 Cafarnao I. Jerusalem .
Baram ki, D .C . and A vi-Y ôn ah, M . 1976 La C itta rom ana di M agdala. Studia Hierosolymitana 1: 365-368.
1936 A n Early B yzantine Synagogue near T ell es Sultan. Q DAP 6: 73-77. 1979 M acheronte, La R eggia Fortezza Erodiana. Liber Annuus 29:315-326.
Barash, M . 1982 R esti della Sinagoga del Prim o Secolo a C afarnao. Studia Hierosolymitana 3: 313-357.
1980 T h e D avid M osaic o f G aza. Assaph, Studies in Art History 1 : 1-42 . T el A viv U n iversity. C ross, F .M .
Ben-Dov, M . 1961 The Ancient Library of Qumran. N ew York.
1982 The D ig at the Temple Mount. Jerusalem (H ebrew ). C row foot, J .A ., K en yon, K .M . and Sukenik, E .L .
1983 Jerusalem’s Fortifications. Jerusalem (H ebrew ). 1942 The Buildings at Samaria. L ondon.
B ennet, C. D am ati, E.
1965 T om bs o f the R om an Period, in K en yon K . Excavation at Jericho II. London. 1982 T he Palace o f H ilkiya. Qadmoniot 15: 117-121 (H ebrew ).
Benoit, P. D ar, S.
1975 T he A rchaeological R econstruction o f the A n tonia Fortress. Jerusalem Revealed: 87-89. 1984 Excavations in the Synagogue o f K h. Sum m aqa. Qadmoniot 17: 72-75 (H ebrew ).
(ed. Y . Y adin). Jerusalem . D au ph in , C .M .
Benoit , P . et al 1974 “Inhabited Scrolls’}from the 4 - 7 Centuries A .D . in Asia Minor and the Eastern Provinces of
1961 Les Grottes de Murabbcat. D iscoveries in the Jud aean D esert 2. O xford. the Byzantine Empire. T hesis. U n iversity o f E dinburgh (unpublished).
Braslavi, J. 1976a A N ew M ethod o f Studying Early B yzantine M osaic P avem ent, w ith Special
1967 Sym bols and M ythological Figures in the Early Synagogues in G alilee. A ll the Land R eference to the L evant. Levant 8: 113-149.
of Naphtali: 106-129. Jerusalem (H ebrew ). 1976b N ote on the M eth od o f L aying Early B yzantine M osaics. Levant 8:155-158.
1978 B yzantine Pattern Books and “ Inhabited Scroll” M osaics. Art History 4: 401-423.
408 BIBLIO G RAPH Y BIBLIO G RAPH Y 409
D avies, P .R . G lueck, N .
1982 Qumran. G uildford, Surrey. 1965 Deities and Dolphins. N ew York.
D em sk y, A. G olb, N .
1985 T h e T ru m peter’s Inscription from the T em ple M ount. E l 18 (A vigad V olum e): 40-42 1980 , T h e Problem o f O rigin and Identification o f the D ead Sea Scrolls. Proceedings of the
(H ebrew ). American Philosophical Society 124: 1-24.
D e V au x, R . G oldm an, B.
1973 Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls. London. 1966 TheSacred
The SacredPortal·.
Portal·. AA Prim
Primary
ary Sym
Symbol
bol inin AAnncient
cientJud
Judaic
aic Art.
Art. DDetroit.
etroit.
D im ant, D . G oodenou gh, E.
1984 Q um ran Sectarian Literature in Jewish Writing of the Second Temple Period, vol II (ed. 1953-1968 Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period I-X III, N ew -Y ork.
M . E. Stone). A ssen. G rabar, A.
D oth an, M . 1960 R echerches sur les sources ju ives de Part Paleo-chretien. Cahiers Archéologiques X I:
1981 TThhee Synagogue
Synagogue atat HHam
ammmath-T
ath-Tiberias.
iberias. ASR:
ASR: 63-69.
63-69. 41-71.
1983 Hammath-Tiberias.
Hammath-Tiberias. Jerusalem
Jerusalem. . 1962 Ibid X II: 115-152.
D u nayevsk i, I. 1964 Ibid X IV : 49-57.
1960 R econstruction (II) M a con. Bulletin Rabinowitz III: 22-23. 1966 U n T h em e de l ’iconographie chrétienne: l ’oiseau dans la cage. Cahiers Archéologiques
Ehrenstein, T . X V I: 9-16.
1923 Das Alte Testament im Bilde. V ienna. 1967 The Beginning of Christian Art. N ew -Y ork.
Figueras, P. 1968 Christian Iconography, A Study of its Origins. N ew York.
1983 Decorated Jewish Ossuaries. Leiden. G utm an, S.
F inney, P .C . 1981 T h e Synagogue at G am la. A SR : 30-34.
1977-78 O rpheus-D avid: A connection in Iconography betw een G reco-R om an Jud aism and G utm an, S , et al.
Early Christianity? Journal of Jewish Art 3-5: 6-15. 1981 Excavation in the Synagogue at H orvat Susiya. ASR: 123-128.
Fischer, M . G utm ann , J.
1984 T h e C orinthian Capitals o f the C apernaum Synagogue - A Late R om an Architectural 1971a T h e H istory o f the Ark. Z A W 83: 22-30.
Feature in Eretz-Israel. E l 17: 305-311 (H ebrew ). 1971b, ed. No Graven Images: Studies in Art and the Hebrew Bible. N ew York.
Fitzgerald, G .M . 1973, ed. The Dura-EuroposSynagogue: A Re-evaluation (1932-1942). M ontana.
1939 A Sixth Century Monastery at Beth-Shan. P hiladelphia. 1975, ed. The Synagogue: Studies inOrigins, Archaeology and Architecture. N ew York.
Fitzm yer, J .A . 1981, ed. Ancient Synagogues: The State of Research. A n n Arbor.
1975 The Dead Sea Scrolls. Major Publications and Tools for Study. M issoula. 1984 T h e Sacrifice o f Isaac: V ariations on a T h em e in Early Jew ish and Christian Art.
Foerster, G . Festschrift fü r Josef Fink. (K öln -V ien ): 115-122.
1972 Galilean Synagogues and their Relation to Hellenistic and Roman Art and Architecture. T hesis. H ach lili, R .
H ebrew U n iversity, Jeru salem (H eb rew , unpublished). 1971 Sacred Architecture and Decoration in the Hellenistic-Roman East. T hesis. H ebrew U n iv er­
1981a T h e Synagogue at M asada and H erodium . ASR: 24-29. sity, Jeru salem (H ebrew , unpublished).
1981b N otes o n ,R e ce n t E xcavations at C apernaum . ASR: 57-59. 1976 T h e N iche and the Ark in A ncient Synagogues. BASOR 223: 43-53.
1983a H . Sh ura'Synagogu e. Hadashot Archaeologiot: 7-9 (H ebrew ). 1977 T he Zodiac in A ncient Jew ish Art: R epresentation and Significance. BASOR 228:
1983b H am m ath G ader Synagogue. Hadashot Archaeologiot: 11-12 (H ebrew ). 61-77.
Föss, C. 1978 A Jeru salem F am ily in Jericho. BASOR 230: 45-56.
1976 Byzantine and Turkish Sardis. C am bridge. 1979 T he G oliath Fam ily in Jericho, Funerary Inscriptions from a First C entury
Frey, J .B . M onum ental T om b. BASOR 235: 31-66.
1952 Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum II. R om e. 1980a A Second T em ple Period N ecropolis in Jericho. BA 43: 235-240.
Frova, A . et al. 1980b T h e C onch M o tif in A ncient Jew ish Art. Assaph. studies in Art History I : 57-65 .T el
1965 Scavi di Caesarea Maritima. M ilan. A viv U n iversity.
G afni, Y. 1981 T h e Nefesh: T h e Jericho C olum n Pyram id. P E Q 113: 33-38.
1981 R einterm ent in the Land o f Israel: N otes on the O rigin and D evelop m en t o f the 1984a W as the A becedarium “ m agical” already in the First century C .E .? Cathedra 31 : 27-
C ustom . The Jerusalem Cathedra 1: 96-104. 30 (H ebrew ).
G alling, K . 1984b N am es and N icknam es o f Jew s in Second T em ple T im es. E l 17 (Brawer volum e):
1956 Erw ägungen zur antiken Synagogue. Z D P V 72: 163-178. 188-211. (H ebrew ).
G eva, H . 1985 A Jew ish Funerary W all P ain tin g o f the First C entury C .E . P E Q 117: 112-127.
1983 Excavations in the Jerusalem C itadel, 1979-1982. IE J 33: 58-61. 1987 O n the G aza School o f M osaicists. E l 19 (A vi-Y onah volum e) (H ebrew ;to be pu b­
G ichon, M . lished).
1978 R om an B ath-H ouses in Eretz-Israel. Qadmoniot 11: 37-53 (H ebrew ).
410 BIBLIO G RAPH Y BIBLIO G RAPH Y 411

H achlili, R ., and K illebrew , A . 1980c A Burial C ave o f the Second T em ple Period at G ivat H aM ivtar, Jerusalem . Jerusalem
1983a Jew ish Funerary C ustom s during the Second T em ple Period in Light o f the E xcava­ in the Second Temple Period (A. Shalit m em orial volum e): 191-224. (eds. A . O p ­
tions at the Jericho N ecropolis. P E Q 115: 109-139. penheim er, U . R appaport, M . Stern). (H ebrew ).
1983b W as the C oin-on -E ye custom a Jew ish Burial Practice in the Second T em ple Period? 1981 A ncient Synagogues in Israel: A n A rchaeological Survey. A S R : 11-18.
BA 46: 147-153. 1983a T h e Subterranean H ideaw ays o f the Ju d ean Foothills and the Bar K okhba R evolt.
H achlili, R ., and M erhav, R . ^ The Jerusalem Cathedra 3: 114-135.
1985 T he M en orah in the First and Second T em ple T im es in the Light o f the Sources and 1983b T h e Synagogue o f H orvat R im on . Qadmoniot 16: 65-71. (H ebrew ).
A rchaeology. E l 18 (A vigad V olum e): 256-267. (H ebrew ). K ochavi, M .
H achlili, R ., and Sm ith, P. 1981 T h e H istory and A rchaeology o f 3Aphek-^Antipatris. BA 44: 75-86.
1979 T h e G en eology o f the G oliath Fam ily. BASOR 235: 67-73. K ohl, H ., and W atzinger, C.
H aran, M . 1916 Antike Synagogen in Galilaea: 107-111. L eipzig.
1959 T h e Ark and the Cherubim ; T heir Sym bolic Significance in Biblical R itual. IE J 9: K on, M .
30-38, 89-94. 1947 The Tombs of the Kings. T el A viv (H ebrew ).
1963 T h e D isappearance o f the Ark. IE J 13: 46-58. K raeling, C .H ., ed.
H estrin, R . 1938 Gerasa, City of the Decapolis. N ew H aven . C onn.
1960 A N ew A ram aic Inscription from A lm a. Bulletin Rabinowitz III: 65-67. 1979 The Excavation at Dura-Europos: The Synagogue, V III, K tav P ublishing H ou se. N .Y .
H iram A. K rauss, S.
1962 D ie Entw icklung der A ntiken Syn agogen und A ltchrislichen K irchenbauten im 1922 Synagogale Altertümer. Berlin - V ien .
H eiligen L ande. Weiner Jahrbuch fü r Kunstgeschichte X I X : 7-63. L avin, I.
H ohlfelder, R .L . 1963 T h e H u n tin g M osaics o f A ntioch and their Sources. Dumbarton Oaks 17: 179-287.
1982 C aesarea Beneath the Sea. BAR 8: 42-47. L eon, H .J .
H üttenm eister, F. 1949 Sym bolic R epresentations in the Jew ish C atacom bs o f R om e. J A O S 69: 87-90.
1982 T h e H oly Ark and the D evelop m en t o f A n cient Synagogues. Proceedings of the Eighth 1960 The Jew s of Ancient Rome. R om e.
World Congress of Jewish Studies: 1-7 (H ebrew ). L eveen, T.
H üttenm eister, F. and R eeg, G. 1944 The Hebrew Bible in Art. L ondon.
1977 Die Antiken Synagogen in Israel. W iesbaden. L evi, D .
Ilan, Z. 1947 Antioch Mosaic Pavements I, II. L ondon. N ew York.
1980 Jew ish M en orot from the G olan. Qadmoniot 51-52; 117-119. (H ebrew ) L evi, S.
Ilan, Z. and D am ati, E. 1960 T h e A n cient Synagogue at M a con (N irim ). Bulletin Rabinowitz III: 6-13.
1984-5 M arous - A n A ncient Jew ish Fortified V illage in U p per G alilee. Israel Land and Nature L evine, L .I.
10: 61-69. 1975a Caesarea under Roman Rule. L eiden.
1985 T h e M osaic from the Synagogue at A n cient M eroth. The Israel Museum Journal IV : 1975b Roman Caesarea. (Qedem 2) Jerusalem .
51-56. 1981a E xcavations at H urvat h a-cA m m u dim . ASR: 78-81.
Jerem ias, J. 1981b T h e Inscription in the cE n‫־‬G edi Synagogue. ASR: 140-145.
1969 Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus. London. 1982 E xcavations at the Synagogue o f H orvat cA m m u dim . IE J 32: 1-12.
K elso, J .L . and Baram ki, D .C . L evine, L .I ., ed.
1955 T he E xcavation o f N ew T estam en t Jericho. AASOR 29-30: 1-49. 1981 Ancient Synagogues Revealed. Jerusalem .
K itzinger, E. L evine, L .I. and N etzer, E.
1951 Studies on Late A ntique and Early B yzantine Floor M osaics. Dumbarton Oaks 6: 8 Iff. 1978 N ew Light on Caesarea. Qadmoniot 11: 70-75. (H ebrew ).
1965a Stylistic D evelop m en ts in P avem ents. M osaics in the Greek East from C onstantine L ifshitz, B.
to Justin ian. La Mosaïque Greco-Romaine I: 341-351. Paris. 1967 Donateurs et fondateurs dans les Synagogues Juives ( Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 7). Paris.
1965b Israeli Mosaics of the Byzantine Period. N ew York. Loffreda, S.
1976 The Art of Byzantion and the Medieval West. L ondon. 1973 T h e Late C hronology o f the Synagogue o f C apernaum . IE J 23: 37-42.
1977 Byzantine Art in the Making. L ondon. 1981 T h e Late C hronology o f the Syn gogue o f C apernaum . ASR: 52-56.
K loner, A. Luria, B.
1974 A Lintel w ith a M enorah fron Ju d ean Shephela. IE J 24: 197-200. 1973 T h e T ow n o f the Priests in the Second T em p le Period. H U C A 44: 1-18 (H ebrew ).
1980a The Necropolis of Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period. T hesis. H ebrew U n iversity (u n ­ Lyttelton, M
1974 Baroque Architecture in Classical Antiquity. London.
published, H ebrew ).
M aoz, Z.
1980b H urvat R im m on , 1979. IE J 30: 226-228.
1972 Torah Shrine in Ancient Synagogues: Art and Reality, (unpublished m anuscript, H ebrew ).
412 BIBLIO G RAPH Y BIBLIO G RAPH Y 413
1980 The Jewish Settlements and Synagogues in the Golan. T h e Society for the P rotection of N aveh, T.
N ature, K azrin (H ebrew ). 1973 A n A ram aic T om b Inscription W ritten in P aleo-H eb rew Script. IE J 23: 82-91.
1981a T h e Synagogue o f G am la and the T yp ology o f the Second T em ple Synagogue. ASR: 1978 On Stone and Mosaic: The Aramaic and Hebrew Inscriptions from Ancient Synagogues.
35-41. Jerusalem (H ebrew ).
1981b T h e Art and Architecture o f the Synagogue o f the G olan. ASR: 98-115. N egev, A.
M aoz, Z ., K illebrew , A ., and H achlili, R . 1967 T h e C hronology o f the Seven-B ranched M enorah. E l 8: 193-210 (H ebrew ).
1987 Excavation at Kazrin Synagogue (to be published). 1975 C aesarea. E A E I: 279-285.
M azar, A . N etzer, E.
1975 T h e A queducts o f Jerusalem . Jerusalem Revealed: 79-84. (ed. Y . Y adin). Jerusalem . 1975a T h e H asm onean and H erodian W inter Palaces at Jericho. IEJ 25: 89-100.
M azar, B. 1975b C ypros. Qadmoniot 8: 54-61 (H ebrew ).
1973 Beth Shecarim I. Jerusalem . 1977 T h e W inter Palaces o f the Ju d ean K ings at Jeriçho at the End o f the Second T em ple
1975a T h e A rchaeological E xcavations near the T em p le M ount. Jerusalem Revealed: 25-40. Period. BASOR 228: 1-13.
(ed. Y . Y adin). Jerusalem . 1980a T h e T riclinia o f H erod as the Prototype o f the G alilean Synagogue Plan. Jerusalem in
1975b The Mountain of the Lord - Excavating in Jerusalem. N ew York. the Second Temple Period: 108-118. (eds. A . O pp enheim er, A . R appaport, and M .
1978 H erodian Jerusalem in the Light o f the Excavation South and South-W est o f the Stern) (H ebrew ).
T em ple M ount. IE J 28: 230-237. 1980b T he H ippodrom e that H erod Built at Jericho. Qadmoniot 13: 104-107 (H ebrew ).
M ayer, L .A ., and R eifen berg, A . 1981a Greater Her odium, Qedem 13. Jerusalem .
1936 T he Jew ish B uildings o f N aw e. BJPES 4: 1-8 (H ebrew ). 1981b H erod ’s B uilding Projects: State N ecessity or Personal N eed? A Sym posium . The
M eshorer, Y. Jerusalem Cathedra 1: 48-80. Jerusalem .
1973 C oins from the Excavations at K horazin. £ 7 11: 158-162. (H ebrew ) 1981c T h e H erodian T riclin ia - A Prototype for the “ G alilean -T yp e” Synagogue. ASR:
1982 Ancient Jewish Coinage, I, II. N ew York. 49-51.
M eyers, C .L . 1982a A ncient R itual Baths (Miqvaot) in Jericho. The Jerusalem Cathedra 1: 106-111.
1976 The Tabernacle Menorah: a Synthetic Study of a Symbolfrom the Biblical Cult. A A S O R D isser­ 1982b R ecent D iscoveries in the W inter Palaces o f the Second T em ple Period at Jericho.
tation Series 2. Qadmoniot 15: 2 2 - 2 9 (H ebrew ).
M eyers, E .M . 1983 T h e w inter Palaces and the K in g ’s estate in Jericho. Jericho (Kardom Series): 95-112
1971 Jewish Ossuaries: Reburial and Rebirth. R om e. (H ebrew ).
1980 A n cient Synagogues in G alilee: T heir R eligiou s and Cultural Setting. BA 43: 97-108. N etzer, E. and Ben-A rieh, S.
1981a T h e Synagogue at H orvat Shem a. ASR: 71-74. 1983 R em ains o f an O pus R eticulatum B uilding in Jerusalem . IE J 33: 163-175.
1981b E xcavations at G ush H alav in the U p p er G alilee. ASR: 75-77. N eu sn er, T.
M eyers, E .M ., K raabel, T .A ., and Strange, J . 1975a N otes on G ood en ou gh ’s Jew ish sym bols I - V II. Early Rabbinic Judaism (Leiden):
1976 Ancient Synagogue Excavations at Khirbet Shemac, Upper Galilee, Israel, 1970-1972. D urham . 152-173.
M eyers, E .M ., M eyers, C .L ., and Strange, J . 1975b Jew ish U se o f Pagan Sym bols after 70 in Early Rabbinic Judaism (Leiden): 174-187.
1978 M eiron 1974-1975. Excavations at M eiron in U p per G alilee 1974, 1975. AASOR 1981 T he Sym bolism o f A ncient Judaism : T he E vidence o f the Synagogues. Ancient
Prelim inary R eports, (ed. D .N . Freedm an). Synagogues. The State of Research, (ed. J . G utm ann).
M eyers, E .M ., M eyers, C .L ., Strange, J . F ., and H anson , R .S . N ock , A . D .
1979 Prelim inary R eport on the 1977-8 Seasons at G ush H alav (el‫־‬Jish). BASOR 233: 1955 G oodenou gh, E. R ., Jew ish Sym bols in the G reco-R om an P eriod, V ols. 1-8. Gnomon
33-58. 27: 558-572.
M eyers, E .M ., and M eyers, C .L . 1957 Ibid. 29: 524-533.
1981 Finders o f a R eal Lost Ark. BAR: 24-39. 1960 Ibid. 32: 728-736.
1982 T h e Ark in Art: A C eram ic R end ering o f the T orah Shrine from N abratein. £ 7 16: O rfali, G .
176M 85*. 1922 Capernaum et ses Ruins. Paris.
M eyers, E .M ., M eyers, C .L ., and Strange, J .F . O vadia, A.
1981a T h e Ark o f N abratein - A First G lance. BA 44: 237-243. 1969 E xcavations in the A rea o f the A n cient Synagogue at G aza. (Prelim inary R eport). IE J
1981b P relim inary R eport on the 1980 Excavations at en ‫־‬N abratein, Israel. BASOR 244: 19: 193-198.
1-25. 1981 T he Synagogue at G aza. AST?: 129-131.
1981c Excavations at Ancient Meiron, Upper Galilee, Israel. 1971-72, 1974-1975. C am bridge Pinkerfeld, J .
M A. AA SO R . 1980 D a v id ’s T om b. Bulletin Rabinowitz III: 41-43.
1982 Second Prelim inary R eport on the 1981 E xcavations at en ‫־‬N abratein, Israel. BASOR Pritchard, J .B ., (ed .)
246: 35-54. 1950 Ancient Near Eastern Texts relating to the Old Testament.Princeton.
Narkiss, M R ab an, A ., and H ohlfelder,
1935 T h e Snuff-Shovel as a Jew ish Sym bol. J P O S 15: 14-28. 1981 T he A ncient H arbors o f C aesarea M aritim a. Archaeology 34: 56-60.
414 BIBLIO GRAPHY BIBLIO G RAPH Y 415
R ah m ani, L .Y . Sm ith, M .
1959 Transform ation o f an O rnam ent. Atiqot 2 (E nglish series): 188-189. 1958 T h e Im age o f G od. John Rylands Library 40: 473-512.
1960 T h e M a con Synagogue ‫ ־‬T h e Sm all Finds. Bulletin Rabinowitz III: 14-18. 1967 G ood en ou gh ’s ‘ ‘Jew ish Sym b ols” in R etrospect. Journal of Biblical Literature 86: 53-68.
1961 Jew ish R ock-C ut T om bs in Jerusalem . Atiqot 3: 93-120. Strange J . F. and Shanks H .
1967 J a so n ’s T om b . IE J 17: 61-100. 1983 Synagogue where Jesu s Preached F ound at C apernaum . BAR IX , 6: 25-31.
1968 Jerusalem T om b M on u m en ts on Jew ish O ssuaries. IE J -18: 220-225. Sukenik, E .L .
1974 A T able-T op o f the Late Second T em p le Period. Atiqot 7: 65-68 (H ebrew ). 1931 D esigns o f the Torah Shrine in A n cient Synagogues in Palestine. P E Q : 22-25.
1977 The Decoration of Jewish ossuaries as Representation of Jerusalem Tombs. T hesis, H ebrew 1932 The Ancient synagogue of Beth ^Alpha. Jerusalem .
U n iversity Jerusalem , (unpublished, H ebrew ). 1933 D esigns o f the Lectern in A ncient Synagogues in Palestine. JP O S 13: 221-225.
1980 D epictions o f M enoroth on O ssuaries. Qadmoniot 51-52: 114-117 (H ebrew ). 1934 Ancient Synagogues in Palestine and Greece. L ondon.
1981-1982 A ncient Jeru salem ’s Funerary C ustom s and T om bs. BA 44: 171-177 (sum m er); 229- 1935 The Ancient Synagogue of El-Hammeh. Jerusalem .
235 (fall); 43-53 (winter); BA 45: 109-119 (spring). 1949 T h e Present State o f A ncient Synagogues Studies. Bulletin Rabinowitz I: 8-23.
R oth , C . ; 1951a T h e A ncient Synagogue at Y afa, near N azareth. Bulletin Rabinowitz II: 6-24.
1953 Jew ish A ntecedents o f C hristian A rt. Journal of the Warburg and Courtland Institute 16: 1951b A N ew D iscovery at Beth 3A lpha. Bulletin Rabinowitz II: 26.
24-44. Sussm ann, j·
R ou ssin , L. 1981 T h e Inscription in the Synagogue at R ehob . ASR: 146-151.
1981 T h e Beit Leontis M osaic: A n Eschatological Interpretation. Journal of Jewish Art 8: Sussm an, V
6-19. 1982 Ornamented Jewish Oil-Lamps, Jerusalem .
R u ssel, K . W . T estini, P.
1980 T h e Earthquake o f M ay 19 A .D . 363. BASOR 238: 47-64. 1958 A q uileia e G rado. Rivista di Archeologia Cristiana 34: 169-181.
Safrai, S. T h om p son , M .L .
1963 W as there a W o m en ’s G allery in the Synagogues o f Antiquity? Tarbiz 22: 329-338 1973 H ypothetical M odels o f the D u ra P aintings. The Dura Europos Synagogue: A Re-
(H ebrew ). Evaluation (1932-1972): 31-52. (ed. J . G utm ann). M ontana.
1965 Pilgrimage at the Time of the Second Temple. T el A viv. (H ebrew ) Tsafrir, Y
1976 T h e T em ple; T h e Synagogue; H om e and Fam ily; The Jewish People in the First Century, 1981 O n the Architectural O rigins o f the A n cient G alilean Synagogues - A R econ sidera­
II: 865-944. (eds. S. Safrai, and M . Stern). A ssen. tion. Cathedra 20: 29-46 (H ebrew ).
Sailer, S. J. 1982 T h e D esert Fortresses o f J u d ea in the Second T em ple Period . The Jerusalem Cathedra
1941 The Memorial of Moses on Mount Nebo. Jerusalem . 2: 120-145.
Sailer, S .Y ., and Bagatti, B. Tsafrir, Y . and M agen , Y.
1949 The Town of Nebo. Jerusalem . 1984 T w o Seasons o f E xcavations at the Sartaba/A lexandrium Fortress. Qadmoniot 17: 26-
Schürer, E ., V erm es, C ., and M illar, A. 32 (H ebrew ).
1973 The History of the Jewish people in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B .C . - A . D . 135), vol. I. T zaferis, V .
1979 vol. II (1979). Edinburgh. 1982 T h e A ncient Synagogue at M a ’oz H ayyim . IE J 32: 215-244.
Schapiro, M . U rbach, E .E .
1960 Israel Ancient Mosaics‫ ״‬U n esco. 1959 T h e R abbinical Laws o f Idolatry in the Second and Third C enturies in the Light o f
Schw abe M . and Lifshitz B. A rchaeological and H istorical Facts. IE J 9: 149-165; 229-245.
1974 Beth She^arim II. Jerusalem . V itto, F.
Seager, A .R . 1974 T h e A ncient Synagogue at R ehov. Atiqot 7: 111-113 (H ebrew ).
1972 T h e B uilding H istory o f the Sardis Synagogue. AJA 76: 425-435. 1980 T h e Synagogue at R eh ov, 1980. IE J 30: 214-217.
1975 T h e A rchitecture o f the D u ra and Sardis Synagogues. The Synagogue, (ed. J . G u t­ 1981a T h e Synagogue at R ehob. A S R : 90-94.
m ann). N ew York. 1981b A Byzantine Synagogue in the Beth Shean V alley. Temples and High Places in Biblical
1981 A ncient synagogue Architecture: A n O verview . Ancient Synagogues, the State of Research: Times: 164-167.
39-47. (ed. J . G utm ann). 1983 Le decor mural des anciennes synagogues a la lum iere de nouvelles découvertes. Inter­
Seager, A . R . and K raabel, A . T . nationaler Byzantinsten Kongress. V ien . 4-9 O ctober 1981.
1983 T h e Synagogue and the Jew ish C om m u nity. Sardis from Prehistoric to Roman Times: 168- V in cen t, R .P .L .H .
190. (ed. G . H anfm ann). C am bridge and London. 1919 Le Sanctuaire J u if d ’A in D ou g. R B 16: 532-563.
Slousch, N . 1921 Le Sanctuaire J u if d ’A in D ou g. R B 30: 442-443.
1921 H am m ath by Tiberias. Journal of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society. I: 5-37. 1961 U n Sanctuaire dans La R egion de Jericho, La Synagogue de N a caran. R B 68:
(H ebrew ) 163-177.
Sm ith, A .M . V erm es, G.
1922 T h e Iconography o f the Sacrifice o f Isaac in Early Christian Art. AJA 26: 159-173. 1978 The Dead Sea Scrolls, Qumran in Perspective, O hio.
416 BIBLIO G RAPH Y

W atzinger, C .
1905 Grieschische Holzsarkophage aus der Zeit Alexanders des Grossen. L eipzig.
W eitzm ann , K .
1957 N arration in Early C hristendom . AJA 61: 83-91. G LO SSA RY
1971a T h e Illustration o f the Septuagint. No Graven Image: 201-231. (ed. J . G utm ann). N ew
York. '—
1971b T h e Q uestion o f the Influence o f Jew ish Pictorial Sources on O ld T estam en t Illustra­ A edicula Stone structure hou sing the Ark.
tions. No Graven Image: 309-328. (ed. J . G utm ann). N ew York. Ark o f the C ovenant A chest w hich stood in S olom on ’s T em ple and contained
W endel, C . the T ablets o f the Law.
1950 Der Thoraschrein im Altertum. H alle. Ark o f the Scrolls A chest w hich housed the Torah.
W iegan d, T h. A pse A sem i-circular recess in a synagogue or church building.
1921 Baalbek. Berlin. A n iconic art T h e absence o f representations o f hum ans and anim als in
W right, G . R . H . art.
1961 T h e A rchaeological R am ains at el M ird in the W ilderness o f Jud aea. Biblica 42: 1-21. B em a A raised platform in front o f the niche or apse o f a
Y ad in , Y . syn agogue, probably em ployed in the reading o f the
1963 The finds from the Bar Kokhba Period in the Cave of the Letters. Jerusalem .
T orah.
1965 T h e Excavation o f M asada 1 9 63/64 ‫־‬. IE J 15: 1-120. Ethrog A citron.
1966 M asada, N ew York. Genizah A hid in g place in the synagogue for its treasure and for
1971 Bar Kokhba. N ew York. discarded scrolls.
1981 T h e Synagogue at M asada. A S R : 19-23. Halakha (pl. = Halakhot) A ccepted decisions in rabbinic law.
1983 The Temple Scroll, vols. I-III. Jerusalem . Incense Shovel R ectangular fire pan w ith handle.
Yarden, L. Lulav Palm branch.
1971 The Tree of Light: A Study o f the M en orah - the Seven-Branched L am pstand. London. M en orah (pl. = M enoroth) Seven-branched candelabrum .
Y eivin , S. Miqveh (pl. =M iqvaoth) A ritual bath.
1942 N otes to the Excavation at Beth S h e’arim. BJPES 9:69-76 (H ebrew ). M ishna (M ) C odification o f Jew ish oral law, com piled ca. 200 C .E .
1946 T h e P ainting o f the Sacrifice o f Isaac in the Beth A lpha Synagogue. BJPES 2: 20-24 Nefesh A m em orial above a tom b.
(H ebrew ). O ssilegium Secondary burial o f bones in ossuaries.
Y eivin , Z. Passover (Pesach) T h e feast o f the first m onth (N isan ), “ the feast o f the
1973 Excavations at K horazin. E l 11: 144-157 (H ebrew ). unleavened bread” (Ex. 12:14).
1974 Inscribed M arble Fragm ents from the K hirbet Susia Synagogue. IE J 24: 201-209. Pentecost (Shavuoth) “ T h e feast o f the harvest” or “ the day o f the first fruit”
1981 T h e Synagogue o f Eshtem oa. ASR: 120-122. (E x .23:16).
1985 R econstruction o f T h e Southern Interior W all o f the K horazin Synagogue. E l 18 Parochet A veil covering the T orah shrine.
(A vigad V olum e): 268-276. (H ebrew ) “ Seat o f M o se s” ( Cathedra d Moshe) A chair, especially for the head o f the com m unity.
Z evulun, U ., and O lenik,. Y . Shofar (pl. = Shofaroth) A ram ’s horn, a ritual object.
1978 Function and Design in the Talmudic Period. T el A viv, M u seum H aaretz catalogue. “ Syrian gable” A triangular gable w ith a base cut by an arch.
Zlotnick, D. T abernacles (Sukkoth) T h e feast o f the seventh m onth; the feast o f ingathering
1966 The Tractate ‘Mourning’ (Semahot). N ew H aven , C on n. (Ex. 23:16).
Zori, N . T able o f Shew bread O n e o f the three ritual objects in the T em ple sanctuary.
1966 T h e house o f K yrios Leontis at Beth She^an. IE J 16: 123-134. T annaitic R ab binic tradition (pre-200 C E) o f the M ishna period.
1967 T h e A ncient Synagogue at Beth Sh^an. E l 8: 149-167 (H ebrew ). T orah shrine A n architectural structure either an aedicula, niche or
apse, containing the Ark o f the Scrolls.
T alm ud A corpus o f Jew ish cerem onial and civil law, com piled in
two corpora: first, the Jerusalem T alm ud ( / .) , ca. 400 C E,
and second, the B abylonian T alm ud (B .), ca. 650 C E.
T osefta ( T .) C ollected corpus o f traditions and teachings connected
with the M ishna.
Zealots A Jew ish group active in Jerusalem during the Jew ish W ar
against R om e (66-70 C E ), w hich fought at M asada (the
last stronghold o f the war) until 73 C E.
G HRO N OLOG Y OF TH E HASMONAEAN AND H ERODIAN DYNASTIES IN D E X O F S U B JE C T S
IN TH E SECOND TEM PLE PERIOD
A edicula 166, 167-179, 187, 194-199, 212, 337, 341, 354-355, 364, 368, 370, 377-378,
216, 221, 224, 253, 272-275, 280-281, 283- 390, 392-395
T h e H asm oneans 284, 321-323, 364, 367, 377, 380, 398 Bird C age 312, 314, 316, 337-338, 369, 393,
Jonathan 152-142 BC E Altar 27, 198, 217, 267, 288, 291, 374 398, 403
Sim eon 142-134 BCE A m phora 81, 212-213, 263, 285, 306, 312, Bull 212, 226, 295, 318, 320-321, 328-329,
J oh n H yrcanus I 134-104 BC E 318, 338, 354, 367, 390, 393 332, 339, 346, 362, 376, 387, 393
A ristobulus I 104-103 BC E A n iconic 5, 83, 235, 285, 287, 401 Burial, custom s 89-103
A lexander Jann aeu s 103-76 BCE A nim al 83, 138, 212, 234, 241, 280, 286-289, in coffins 92-95, 97, 100-101
Salom e A lexandra (Shlom zion) 76-67 BC E 292, 294-295, 297, 306, 309-310, 312, 314- in ossuaries 92, 95, 100-111
Aristobulus II 67-63 BC E 315, 317, 320-321, 328-330, 339-340, 346, B yzantine, Art 306, 339
Joh n H yrcanus II 63-40 BCE 361-362, 364, 367, 376-378, 388, 390, Period 227, 229, 231, 271, 366, 368, 399
M atthias A ntigonus 40-37 BC E 393-394
A n im al chase 312, 328, 330, 339-340, 393 C apital/s 42, 55, 72-73, 80, 104, 166, 175,
T h e H erodians A ntithetic 210, 212, 216, 226, 310, 312, 315, 178, 184, 200, 216-221, 238, 241, 249, 265,
H erod the G reat 37-4 BC E 317, 321, 348, 359, 361-362, 365-368, 376, 320, 333, 364, 375
H erod Archelaus 4 B C E -6C E 378 C arpet 66-67, 227, 310, 315, 337, 347, 352,
H erod A ntipas 4 B C E -39 CE A pse 166-167, 180-183, 188, 191, 193, 196- 354-355, 359, 368, 371-372, 391-392, 403
Philip 4 B C E -34 CE 199, 227, 232-233, 255, 268, 272-273, 275, C atacom bs 92, 102-103, 249, 266, 291-292,
H erod A grippa I 37-44 CE 284, 310, 354, 361-362, 374, 398-399 294-295, 299-300, 321, 323, 328, 330, 336,
A grippa II 53-100 CE A queduct 15, 41, 63-64, 120 339, 341, 362, 373, 387-388
A raq el Em ir 9 C entaur 344
A rchitecture, H asm onean 9-11, 15 C hair o f M oses 187, 193-194
T h e Jew ish W ar (against R om e) 66-70 CE H erodian 9, 11-16, 65 C hancel Screen 178, 181, 183, 187-191, 212,
D estruction o f Jerusalem and T em ple - 70 CE Synagogue 141-199, 278 238, 249, 256, 262, 265, 373, 389, 391
Fall o f M asada - 73 CE Architectural O rnam entation 200-221 C hest 272-273, 279, 294
T h e Bar K okhba W ar - 132-135 CE Ark o f the C ovenant 28, 279-280; Church 189-190, 197-198, 205, 226, 236, 254,
Ark, Ark o f the Scrolls 139, 156, 166-167, 271, 294, 299, 310, 312, 314, 316, 329, 335,
179-182, 187, 189, 191-192, 197-198, 219, 337-339, 344, 347, 354, 368, 370-375, 378,
230, 232, 234-236, 238, 241, 247-248, 251, 388-393, 395, 404
253-255, 271-280, 284-285, 336, 362, 368, C hristian art 280, 287-289, 291, 294-295,
376-378, 394, 403 297, 299-301, 309, 330, 344, 370-375
Artists 119, 205-206, 241, 263, 299-300, 310, C hristians, C hristianity 5, 180, 235-236, 253‫־‬
313, 316, 329, 335, 337, 340, 361, 364, 368, 255, 285, 288, 290-292, 300, 309, 343, 370-
375, 378, 382-391, 394-396 373, 383, 386, 388, 390-393, 395, 401,
403-404
Bar K okhba, caves 129-131, 262; W ar 4, C offin (W ooden) 89, 92-95, 97, 100, 102, 212,
82, 128-129, 226, 251, 262 341, 388
Basilica 86, 141, 227, 374 C oins 27, 81-82, 93, 120, 131-132, 193, 238,
Bath H ou se 11, 15, 33, 40, 42, 47, 49, 55, 57- 251-252, 255, 262, 272, 280, 396-397
61, 65-68, 70, 120 C onch 180, 219, 235, 271, 280-285, 318, 376,
Bema 182-183, 188, 192, 195, 198-199, 267 394
Biblical Scenes 226, 287-300, 341, 343, 352, C raftsm an 78, 103, 217, 383-391
361-362, 364, 370-371, 373, 378-79, 394, Craftsm anship 72
398, 403
Birds 71, 79, 81, 116, 189, 212, 223, 227, D an iel in the L io n s’ D en 287-288, 294-295,
235, 292, 294, 307, 312, 315, 317, 321, 335- 300, 362, 373
420 IN D EX OF SUBJECTS IN D EX OF SUBJECTS 421

D avid and G oliath ’s w eapons 222, 287, 299
D iaspora 18, 20, 88, 137, 169, 175, 180, 192‫־‬
193, 224, 232, 234, 238, 254, 263-264, 266,
273, 285-287, 294, 339, 362, 369, 386
D olph ins 318, 330-332, 377, 387
Eagle 27, 81, 187, 189, 206-208, 212, 221,
297, 318, 320, 329-330, 332-335, 346, 365-
366, 376-377, 380, 387, 393-394
E m blem 65, 131, 217, 219, 235-236, 255-256,
263-266, 336, 347, 355, 372, 378
En-Face 305, 312, 338-340, 364, 393
Ethrog 131, 256, 258-262, 266-267, 285, 310,
312, 361, 403
Fauna m otifs 315, 317, 320-340
F igurative Art 235, 285-316, 348, 362, 371-
3 7 2 , 3 7 9 ,3 9 8
Fish 79, 81, 330-332
Flora m otifs 206, 210, 280, 315, 317-320
Fortresses 32, 45-49
Fresco 10, 15, 24, 34, 42, 57, 60, 62, 67-71,
79-81, 199, 223-224, 241, 251-252, 280, 287,
299-300, 373
Frieze 104-105, 200, 206-207, 210, 212-213,
216, 219-221, 272, 292, 317, 326-327, 330,
333, 339-340, 344, 364-365, 388, 392
Funerary art 5, 65, 78, 80-81, 83, 103-119,
234-236, 256, 264, 266, 268, 280-281, 284,
286-287, 292, 317, 321, 328, 329, 332-334,
373-374, 376-378, 380-382, 393, 395, 402
C ustom s 89-103
G alilean Synagogues 14’1, 143-144, 156, 161,
164-166, 173, 175, 179, 181-182, 187, 191-
192, 194-195, 197-200, 204-205, 216-218,
221-223, 227, 229-233, 272, 281, 299, 333,
386, 388, 397-399, 402
G allery 143, 194-196, 212, 373
Garlands 206, 320, 332-333, 376, 387
Geniza 180, 187, 192-193
G enre M otifs 315-317, 344-346, 371-372
G eom etric m otifs 206, 223-224, 280, 315, 318
G lass 132, 241, 249, 251, 253, 265, 268, 271
G old glasses 241, 249, 251, 321, 328, 362
G olan Sculpture 220-221
G olan Synagogues 141, 143, 145, 160-161,
164-165, 173, 177, 181, 187, 191, 194, 197-
200, 202, 205, 216-218, 220, 222-223, 229-
233, 333, 367, 388, 398-399, 402
Graffiti 81, 118, 341
H an gin g Lam p 256-266, 268-272, 361
Hazzan 139, 383
H elios 308
H ellen istic Art 657 82, 219, 229
H eraldic 206, 212, 216, 317, 321, 327, 329-
330, 333, 335, 337, 339, 352-354, 361, 367,
370, 376-378, 393-394
H ercules K not 280
H erod ’s T om b 57
H erodian Period 4, 63, 238
Horror Vacui 65, 104, 115, 219, 289, 315, 348,
368-369, 401
H u m an 83, 306, 309, 339, 364, 366, 392
H u m an Figure 287, 294, 306, 316-317, 321,
340-343, 366-367, 371, 390
H u n t, H u n tin g 339, 388, 392
Iconography 234, 316, 337, 370
Incense Shovel 256, 258-263, 265-266, 285,
361, 377, 403
Inhabited Scrolls 226-227, 297, 310-316, 318,
330, 333, 336-340, 343, 347, 354, 367, 371-
372, 378, 390, 392, 394-395
Inscriptions 4, 55, 87, 131, 135, 137, 140, 188,
191, 193, 195, 212, 222-224, 255, 262, 268,
272, 287, 290, 292, 295, 297, 299, 301, 312-
313, 315, 321, 336, 338, 352, 354, 361-363,
, 370, 372, 376, 378-380, 383-386, 391,
394-399
Beth Shecarim 103
O ssuaries 95, 97-99
Synagogous 225-227
Jew ish Artists 383-388
Jew ish Sym bols 192, 206, 216-217, 219, 224,
234-285, 307, 314, 316, 321, 328, 352-355,
361-362, 375, 388-389, 394-395, 403
Jew ish W ar (First W ar against R om e) 4, 82, 84,
122-124, 127, 262
Jew s 3-6, 8, 12, 20, 25, 65, 83, 97, 100, 102-
103, 122-123, 126, 128, 135, 137-138, 140,
166, 199, 217, 233-235, 251, 254-255, 262,
266, 284, 286-287, 292, 299, 301, 306, 309,
317, 330, 370, 372, 375, 378-379, 383, 386,
388, 391, 393, 395-397, 401, 403
Ju d aism 4, 17, 65, 102, 120, 125, 233-235,
255, 279, 285-287, 289, 291-292, 309, 317,
344, 370, 395, 401-402
Kelilah . 258, 268, 271-272
Lam p 97, 132, 184, 189, 238, 240, 249, 251,
253-254, 262, 265-266, 268, 271, 275, 280,
284, 312, 377
Lintel 167, 173, 175, 184, 200, 202-216, 219,
221, 229, 238, 241, 265, 271, 273,
317-318, 320-323, 326-327, 329-330, 332,
335, 337, 340, 344, 362, 364, 367,
386, 393, 396, 398
Lion 26, 184, 187, 189, 200, 212, 220-221,
226, 236, 286, 294-295, 297, 310, 317-318,
320-328, 330, 333, 336, 339, 346, 352, 354,
362, 364-365, 367, 376-378, 387-388,
393-394
L ioness 173, 321, 323, 326-328, 376-378
L oculi T om bs 89-97
L ulav 131, 217, 256, 258-262, 265-267, 285,
3 1 0 , 3 6 1 ,4 0 3
Lyre 297-298
M ean der 67, 80, 280, 320
M edallions 106, 226, 310-316, 337-338, 354-
355, 364, 370, 378, 390, 403
M ed usa 219, 344, 367
M enorah 27, 79, 81-83, 189, 198, 206, 210-
213, 216-218, 221-222, 224, 226, 234-57,
262, 264-266, 269, 271-272, 278, 284-285,
301, 310, 312-313, 317-318, 321, 328, 335-
337, 339, 341, 354-5, 361-362, 366, 368, 370,
372, 375, 377-380, 386-387, 389, 393-395,
403
Miqveh 11, 61
Mishna 4, 20, 24, 386
M osaic, P avem ents, Floors 10, 43, 55, 57, 61,
66-67, 80, 141, 183-184, 187, 191-193, 199,
221-224, 226-227, 231, 238, 241, 247, 249,
251, 253-254, 256, 258-260, 262, 264, 266,
268, 271, 273, 275, 278, 284, 287, 292, 294-
297, 299, 301, 303-310, 312, 314-318, 320-
321, 329-330, 333, 336-339, 343-364, 367,
369, 371-374, 376, 378-379, 383-388, 390-
395, 398-399, 402-403
M otif/s 24, 66-67, 72, 79-83, 104, 110-111,
113-114, 116, 119, 199, 210, 212, 217, 219,
234-236, 264, 280, 283-286, 297-298, 304,
308, 316-346, 365, 367-370, 372, 376, 380,
383, 386, 390-395, 402
M yrtle 131, 256, 267
M ythological scenes, m otifs 219, 286-287,
298-301, 306, 317, 340, 344, 348, 371, 393,
3 9 5 ,4 0 3
N abatean Art 317, 329-330, 337, 365, 368,
403
Nefesh 81, 89, 107-108, 118
279,N281,
iche 143, 156, 166-167, 179-180, 182-183,
187, 194, 196-199, 230, 255, 272-273, 275,
383, 385-
280-284, 355, 361-362, 398
N ikea 206-207, 286, 317-318, 340, 367, 377,
387, 393
N ilotic Scenes 301, 344, 368
N o a h ’s Ark 287-288, 292-294, 300, 336, 361-
362, 364, 373
Opus Quedratum 13, 15, 35
Opus Reticulatum 13, 15, 35
Opus Sectile 36, 57, 60, 65-68, 222
O riental Art 343, 348, 366-369, 376, 403
O riental Elem ents 65, 83, 103-104, 219, 229,
361, 366-369, 371, 388, 398, 401-402
O ssuary 65, 70, 72, 80-82, 92, 95-101, 103,
110-115, 118-119, 212, 251, 281-282, 368,
380-382, 401
Burial 9 2 ,9 5 ,1 0 0 - 1 0 1
O rnam entation 110-113
W orkshops 113-115
P agan/s 83, 97, 128, 156, 234, 255, 280, 284,
286, 297-298, 301-304, 308-309, 334, 340
P agan Art 320, 329-330, 344, 346, 371, 378,
383, 386, 388, 391, 393, 401
Palaces, H asm onean 9-11, 34, 37, 70
H erodian 11-16, 32-45, 53, 55, 66-67, 70,
87
P alm T ree 115, 118, 289, 307-308, 310
branch 131, 256, 262
Panel 68, 71, 227, 288-289, 291-292, 294-295,
300-301, 305, 310, 312, 316, 328, 330, 341,
343, 352-354, 359-363, 367, 369-370, 377,
386, 392, 394-395, 403
Parochet 181, 191-192, 237, 275
Passover 18, 237, 268
Pattern 299, 315, 344, 361-365, 383, 386,
390-395, 401
A rchitectural 70, 72, 80, 110
Faunal 81
G eom etric 80, 110, 210, 219, 223, 284,
299, 316-317, 333, 371
Floral, Plant 70, 79-80, 110-111, 114, 132,
210, 219, 223
422 IN D EX OF SUBJECTS
Pattern Books 286, 288, 300-301, 317, 329,
332, 337, 339, 340, 344-345, 362, 368-369,
386-387, 390-395, 402, 404
Peacock 226, 310, 312, 317, 338-339, 354,
393
Pentecost (Shavuot) 18, 237, 268
P eristyle 10, 15, 33, 49
P olycandelon 268, 270-271
Priest 19, 26, 28, 125, 138, 229, 235, 238,
263, 267
Priestly C ourses List 225-226, 402
R e lie f 141, 173, 184, 187, 216, 221, 284, 318,
322, 326, 328, 330, 332-333, 341-342, 344,
364-365, 367-368, 402
R einterm ent 103
R osette 66, 79-80, 106, 111, 113-114, 212-
213, 219, 317-318, 320, 376, 380, 387, 402
R ites 234, 267-268, 285, 362
R itual Bath 60-61, 84, 92
R itual O bjects (utensils) 234-235, 253, 256-272,
285, 300, 354, 361-362, 370, 379, 386, 394,
403
R om an Art 65, 82, 320, 330, 339, 365
R om an Period 173, 366, 368, 399
R om an T em ples 205
Sacrifice o f Isaac 287-292, 300, 361-362, 366,
373, 379, 403
Sarcophagus 72, 78, 80, 89, 102-103, 118-
119, 240, 266, 281-282, 292, 294-225, 317-
322, 326-331, 333, 335-336, 339-342, 365,
367, 373, 376-377, 380, 382, 387-388, 401
ornam entation 115-116
Screen, see C hancel Screen
Scrolls, Torah 87, 193-194, 199, 272-273,
275, 279
D ead Sea 123-125, 299
Sculpture 200, 219, 221, 321, 364-365, 367-
368, 398, 402
Sea G oat 344, 365
Seasons, Four 305, 307-309, 341, 343, 403
Second T em ple Period 7-132, 138, 318, 335,
365, 369, 380, 401-402
Synagogues 8, 84-88, 138
Shalom 215, 295, 312
Shofar 223, 256, 258-262, 265-266, 307-308,
310, 361, 377, 403
Sirens 301, 343
Species 131-132, 267, 285
Stags 330-331, 378
IN D EX OF SUBJECTS 423
Stone, C arving 72-78 “ T om b o f the K in g s” 80, 104-105, 107, 380 V ictories 206-207, 340
Stonem asons 78-79, 119 T orah 18-19, 88, 138-139, 166-167, 182-183, V in e 66, 80, 116, 212, 216, 220, 224, 310,
Stone Plaque 284, 321, 336, 341 199, 267, 272, 275, 278-279, 285, 328 312, 315, 318, 338-340, 353, 365, 367, 371,
Stone T ables 72, 77-78, 80 T orah Shrine 87-88, 135, 141, 1*3, 156, 166- 390, 403
Stone V essels 78, 81 187, 189-192, 195-200, 213, 222, 227-228,
Stone W ork 72-787 83 230-233, 270-273, 275-280, 284-285, 294, W all P ain tin g 55, 65, 67-71, 115-119
Stucco 10, 15, 55, 65, 71, 80-81, 237, 255 321-323, 328, 330, 332-333, 336-337, 352, W illow 1 3 1 ,2 5 6 ,2 6 7
Stylization 281, 284, 289, 315, 317-318, 337, 361-362, 374, 377, 379, 388, 392-395, 397- W orkshop 43, 78-79, 113-115, 120, 122, 189,
340, 364-369, 403 398, 402-403 313, 316, 333, 382-391, 394
Subterranean hid in g places 130-131 T riclinium 15, 33, 36, 87, 227 W reath 206-207, 212-213, 216-217, 219, 224,
Sun-god 305, 308-309, 341, 377 T riple portal 143, 156-160 227, 280, 318, 327, 329-332, 340, 354, 365,
Sym bolic, Sym bols 65, 83-84, 97, 113, 131, T w elve T ribes 295-297 376, 387, 389, 393
156, 199, 206, 210, 216, 228, 253-255, 264,
266, 275, 278-281, 284-292, 294-295, 297, U n id en tical Sym m etry 330, 376-378, 402, Zealots 84, 86, 88
305-306, 309-310, 316-318, 320, 328-330, 404 Zodiac, Zodiac Signs 225-226, 236, 287, 294,
332-334, 337, 339, 344, 354, 361, 368, 370- 297, 301-309, 327-328, 330, 341-343, 352-
373, 376, 379, 388, 393-394, 401-404 V ase 330, 339, 365, 377, 390, 393 353, 361, 370-371, 377, 379, 391, 394, 398,
Sym m etry 65, 79, 111, 254, 310, 312, 314- V eil 187, 191-192, 275 403
315, 321, 361-362, 365, 367, 376-378,
401-402
.Synagogues - Second T em ple 8, 84-88, 138
Synagogues - 134 ff.
Synagogal Art 5, 79, 83, 234-236, 255-256,
263-264, 266, 280, 284, 286, 300, 305, 317,
321, 328, 329, 332, 378, 388, 395, 402
Syrian A rchitecture 156, 231, 234, 402
Syrian Art 281, 317, 329, 337, 365
Syrian C hurches 161, 164, 205
“ Syrian G able” 143, 161-162, 229, 284
Syrian T em ples 156, 160-161, 205, 281
Tabernacle 18, 237, 272, 279
T abernacles Feast (Sukkoth) 82, 237, 262-263,
267-268, 285
T able , Shew bread 27, 79, 81-82, 235, 237-
238, 251, 253, 255
Tabula Ansata 313
T alm ud 251, 379, 385-386
T em ple (Second T em ple in Jerusalem ) 11, 14,
15-32, 49, 61-62, 72, 82, 87-88, 113, 125-
126, 128, 131, 138, 196, 226, 228, 234-235,
237, 251, 253-256, 262, 267-268, 275, 279-
280, 285, 362, 396, 401-403
T em p le, Solom on 28, 279
T em p le V essels 79-82, 234-238, 251, 255,
266, 402
T om bs 65, 67, 72, 78, 80-81, 83, 89-119, 249,
254, 275, 281-282, 284, 385, 401
K idron V alley T om bs 89, 104, 106-109,
380

IN D E X OF NAM ES A N D PLACES
A braham 288-291 275, 281-282, 284, 287, 318-323, 326-330,
3A hm ed ieh 212, 214, 318, 329-330 333-342, 362, 364-367, 376-377, 380, 382,
A lexandria 15, 25, 288, 299, 301, 368 386-389
A lexandrium 12, 45-47, 66, 70-71 Beth Shecarim Synagogue 161, 166, 180, 188,
cA lm a 383-384, 386 221
cA m m u dim , H orvat 163-164, 173, 194, 200, Bethar 128
212, 217, 221-222, 229-230, 272, 320-322, B yzantine 173, 223, 288, 297-298, 306, 343,
326-328, 364-365, 367, 383-384, 397-399 347, 364, 369, 400
A ntipantris 12, 14-16
A ntioch 14, 308, 339, 354, 368-369, 383 C aesarea 11, 12-16, 62, 64, 66, 70, 87
A p am ea 339 H arbour 15, 33, 53-55
3Arbel 156, 179, 194, 206, 217, 229-230, H ippodrom e 13, 62
398-399 Synagogue 184, 217, 225, 255, 374-375,
Arch o f T itus 81-82, 236, 238-239, 251, 255 399
A rm enian Church, Jerusalem 338 T heater 13, 62, 71
‫־‬,A scalon 33, 189, 218, 225, 249, 255, 396 C apernaum , Second T em ple Synagogue 85-
3A shdod 189, 190 88, 228
cA ssalieh 160, 164, 166, 184, 194, 201-202, Synagogue 136, 161-164, 166-167, 174,
213, 215-217, 221, 224, 367 187, 194-195, 200, 207, 210, 212-214,
216-219, 221, 229-231, 249, 252-253,
Bathra 318 272-273, 283-284, 321-322, 324-325, 327,
Barcam 143, 161-162, 164-165, 175, 187, 194, 332-334, 344, 365, 367-368, 375-376,
200, 206, 217, 229-300, 318, 320, 324, 327, 397-399
340-341, 344, 364-365, 367, 383, 398-399 C horazin 84, 137, 164, 166-169, 175, 184,
Bar K okhba 4, 27, 128-132, 272, 280 187, 194, 200, 204, 211-212, 214, 217-221,
224, 230, 318, 324, 327, 333, 337, 340, 344,
Bar K okhba, Period 128-132
364-365, 367-368, 374, 392-393, 397-399
Beth 3A lpha 161, 181-183, 187, 191-192, 194,
223-224, 226, 231-232, 241, 248, 251, 253, C ypros, Fortress 12, 14, 32, 45, 47-49, 59, 66-
256, 271, 273, 284, 287-289, 291, 292, 295, 67, 70-72
300, 304-308, 315, 3 2 l V3 2 7 3 3 6 , 330 , 328‫־‬,
343-345, 347, 350, 352, 357, 361-362, 364, D abbura 195, 204, 207-208, 221, 320, 330-
366-367, 369-370, 372-373, 376-377, 385- 332, 340, 365, 367, 384-386, 396-397
386, 392-394, 396, 398-399, 403 D ab iya 160, 221
Beth She3an 241, 370-371, 383 D an iel 225, 287-288, 294-295, 300, 321, 362,
Beth She3an M onastry 308, 313, 343, 389- 373, 378
390, 392, 396 D avid (K in g) 222, 287, 297-300, 327, 343,
Beth She3an Synagogue A 181, 184, 187, 191‫־‬ 362, 364, 367, 386, 392-393
192, 226, 231-232, 241, 251, 256-257, 265, “ D a v id ’s T o m b ” , Jerusalem 180
271, 273, 284, 347, 349, 352, 361, 377, 385, D ikke, H orvat 160, 163-164, 166, 177, 184,
392, 394, 396, 399 194, 206-207, 217-218, 221, 229, 320, 333,
Beth She3an Synagogue B 180, 226, 241, 247, 340, 367, 393, 399
271, 301-302, 310, 312-316, 321, 328, 330, D u ra Europos Synagogue 27, 179, 181-182,
336-37, 339-340, 347, 354, 370, 378, 385, 192-193 , 2 2 4 , 2 4 1 , 251-253 , 2 6 6 , 2 7 2 , 279 ‫־‬
390, 391, 394-396, 399 281, 287, 289-291, 297-300, 339, 393
Beth Shecarim 92, 101-103, 175, 177, 184,
197, 247, 249-250, 262, 266, 268, 271, 273, E gypt, Egyptian 3, 92-93, 100, 104, 107, 135
IN D EX OF NAMES AND PLACES
‫־‬,Ephraim 295, 297
cEn Fesha 120, 123
cEn el‫־‬G uw eir 101-102, 120
cEn G edi 93, 95, 127-128, 130-131
Synagogue 143, 179-180, 183, 188, 192-193,
198, 223, 225, 227, 238, 249, 273, 287,
309, 336, 347, 355, 371-372, 378-379, 397-
399, 403
cEn N esh ut 160, 173, 194-195, 197, 217-218,
221, 223-224, 230, 322-323, 326, 328, 333,
337, 397
cEn Sam sam 173, 221, 277, 321-322, 327-
328, 333, 340, 365, 367, 376
3E shtem oca 143, 156-157, 179, 182, 197, 199,
210-212, 223, 232, 241, 255, 399
Essenes 101-102, 123, 127
cEzr3a 138, 279
Fahm a 212
G adara 189
G alilee 5, 128, 135, 200, 217-218, 222, 224,
230, 320, 332, 383, 386, 388, 396, 401
G am la, Synagogue 80, 84-88, 228, 320
G aza 12
Synagogue 13, 181, 183, 188-190, 226,
232, 287-288, 297-298, 300, 310, 312, 314-
315, 327, 337-339, 343, 347, 362, 364,
367, 378, 386, 390-393, 395-396, 399
G erasa, Synagogue 182, 217, 227, 231, 241,
256, 287-288, 292-294, 300, 327, 336-337,
361-362, 364, 373, 399
G olan 184, 187, 194-195, 200, 207, 212, 217,
221-224, 229-230, 253, 320, 322, 325-327,
330, 332-333, 337, 383, 385, 396-397
G oliath T om b , Jericho 71, 80-81, 91, 95, 111
G oliath 222, 287, 299
G ush H alav 156, 164, 167, 169, 172-173,
192, 194, 197, 206, 217, 229, 320, 332, 364,
376, 397-399
H am m am L if 339
H am m ath G ader Synagogue 156, 158, 178,
’ 181-183, 188-190, 198, 221-222, 226-227,
231, 321, 327-328, 347, 354, 359, 362, 367,
389, 391-392, 394, 398-399
H am m ath T iberias Synagogue A 180, 187,
’ 189, 193, 217, 238, 255
H am m ath Tiberias Synagogue B 180, 182,
' 184, 192, 194, 223-224, 226-227, 241, 248,
425
251, 253, 256-257, 266, 275, 284, 304-308,
321, 327-328, 341, 343, 347-348, 354, 356,
359, 361-362, 366, 370, 372, 377-379, 386,
392, 394, 398-399
H asm onean 3-4, 8-11, 14, 45-47, 51, 61-63,
82, 92, 109, 124, 138
H auran 156, 205, 229, 272, 386, 402
H ellen istic 4, 14, 65, 70, 78, 81-83, 86, 97,
104, 119-120, 131, 140, 219, 227, 234-235,
280, 285-286, 288, 291, 298, 300-301, 308,
318, 328, 343-344, 368-369, 373, 388, 392
H erod, K in g 3-4, 10-16, 20, 32, 34, 37, 40-
41, 45, 47-49, 53, 62-65, 81-82, 115, 120,
2 3 8 ,2 6 2
H ero d ’s T om b 57, 109
H erodium , Palace 11-16, 33, 37-41, 45-46, 49,
57, 64, 66-67, 71, 128, 130, 310
Synagogue 84-88
H ip picu s T ow er 15, 49, 51
H ou se o f L eontis, Beth She^an 227, 287, 301-
302, 312, 336, 339, 343-344, 366, 368, 390-
392, 395
H ulda 256, 370
H ulda gates 28, 30, 32, 72, 74-76
H useifa 224-226, 231-232, 241, 251, 256,
304-307, 338, 347, 352-353, 362, 377, 391,
394
H yrcania 45, 49
Isaac 287-292, 300,; 361-362, 366, 379, 403
Israelites 19, 25
Ja p h ica 208, 211-213, 216, 226, 231-232, 295‫־‬
297, 330, 332-333, 343-344, 347, 354,
365-367
Jericho 19, 33, 61-62, 127, 380
C em etery 70, 80, 89-107, 111, 113-114,
118-119
H asm anean Palace 9-11, 14, 34, 43
H erodian Palaces 13-15, 32, 34-37, 40, 43-
45, 59, 61-62, 66-67, 70-71, 87-88, 227
H ippodrom e 15, 61-62
Syn agogue 160, 181, 187, 218, 225-226,
232, 241, 249, 257, 265, 268, 275, 284,
347, 355, 360, 372, 391, 394, 399, 403
V alley 9-10, 32, 61
Jeru salem 3-6, 12-16, 18-19, 33, 40, 46, 49-
53, 55, 61-63, 66-67, 71-72, 78, 80-81, 87,
103, 109, 128, 135, 137, 156, 231-232, 238-
239, 249, 251, 268, 279-281, 310, 314, 338,
380; 393, 401
426 IN D EX OF NAMES AND PLACES IN D EX OF NAMES A ND PLACES 427

A n tonia 14, 40, 49
Citadel 49
C ity W alls 51-53
H ouses 55-56, 70-71, 79-81
Palace 14, 33
T em ple (See T em ple)
T om b s, C em etery 79-80, 83, 89, 92, 95-97,
99-101, 104-119
U p per C ity 13, 55
Joseph us, Flavius 9-11, 14, 33, 38, 47, 49, 87,
99, 109, 127, 138
Ju d ea, Ju d ean 3-4, 18, 82, 88, 92, 100, 128,
135, 138, 179, 197-198, 232
Ju d aean D esert 12, 128-132
Ju d ah 3 , 3 2 1 , 3 2 8
K anef, H orvat 166, 194-195, 202-203, 212,
214, 216, 221, 318, 320, 337, 393, 397
K asyun 4, 212, 396-397
K azrin 164-167, 170, 178, 184, 192, 194, 197,
202, 210, 212-213, 215-218, 221-224, 230,
318, 367, 374, 397
K efar K ana 384-385
K efar .Yasif 184, 249, 271, 275
K ishor, H orvat 271
K issufim 339, 371
K okhav H ayarden 175, 177, 183, 212, 249,
362
K asabieh 326-327, 329, 332
L evites 19, 25
M achaerus 12, 45-46, 49-50, 61, 66, 71
M a con 181, 183, 192-193, 195, 222-223, 226,
232, 241, 249, 251, 254, 256-257, 265, 268,
273, 288, 310-312, 314-316, 318, 321, 328,
333, 335, 337-338, 340, 345, 347, 369-372,
378, 386, 391-395, 399
M a cos H ayim 160, 178, 181-183, 187, 193,
197-198, 221, 224, 231, 256, 320, 336, 372,
392, 398-399
M anasseh, K in g 279
T ribe 299
M ariam m e T ow er 15, 49
M arous Synagogue 156, 175, 184, 221-222,
287, 299-300, 343, 398-399
M asada 4, 9, 13-16, 32-33, 36, 40-46, 57, 61,
66-67, 71-72, 78-81, 124, 227 Synagogue
84-88
M attathias A n tigon ous 4, 82, 238, 251-252, 231, 234-235, 238, 254, 280, 309, 320, 332, 284, 287, 295, 305, 320, 321, 330, 336, 347,
255 339-340, 348, 368-369, 382 352, 361, 371-372, 377, 379, 392-394, 399
M eiron Synagogue 143, 169, 172, 194-195, R oyal Stoa, Jerusalem 12, 24, 28, 31-32, 72 Syria 197-198, 205, 216, 223, 229, 232, 272,
197, 206, 217, 229-230, 374, 397-399 339, 385-386, 388, 398
M igd al Synagogue 84-88 Safed 207-208, 327, 332-333
M isis-M op suestia 287, 294, 337, 364 Safsaf 212-213, 329, 367 T em ple M ou n t, Jerusalem 5, 12, 14-15, 20-
M ou n t G erizim 232 Sam aria-Sebaste 13-14, 63-64, 82 32, 49, 53, 55, 61, 63, 72, 81, 238-239
Sardis 169, 173, 175-176, 182, 192, 197 T iberias 12, 87, 188, 197, 262, 304, 321, 328,
N a cana 273, 275 Sarona 336 335
N a caran 181, 187, 226, 231, 241, 248, 271, Sepphoris 5, 19, 33, 384-385 T irat Zvi 256
273, 287-288, 294, 300, 304-309, 316, 327- Shellal, C hurch 254, 310, 314, 338, 371, 378 T yb e 200, 202, 204, 213, 215-216, 318, 320
328, 330-331, 337, 340, 343, 347, 351-352, Sh em ca, H orvat 156, 159, 167, 178, 182, 184,
358, 361-362, 372, 378-379, 386, 391-392, 194-196, 206, 211, 221, 224, 232, 333-334, Um rn el-K anatir 160-161, 164, 166-167, 177,
394, 398-399, 403 397, 399 184, 194, 217-218, 221, 278, 323, 333, 364
N ab atean /s 55, 161, 200, 205, 227 Shura 230
T em ples, A rchitecture 281, 284, 378 Sum m aqa, H orvat 200-201, 206, 231, 322 W ilso n ’s Arch 28, 31, 63
N abratein 156, 166-167, 170, 173-174, 182, Susiya, H orvat Synagogue 143, 156-157, 161,
184, 192, 194, 196-97, 206, 212, 214, 217, 179, 182-184, 188-189, 192, 194-195, 198, Z um im ra 173, 184, 187, 204, 323-324
221, 223, 226, 228-229, 253, 271, 318, 321- 223-224, 226, 232, 249, 251, 253, 271, 275,
323, 327, 336, 364, 367, 396-399
N aveh (Syria) 179, 211-212, 214-216, 272,
318, 320
N oah 287-288, 292-294, 300, 336, 361-362,
373
O dysseus 301, 343, 390
O dyssey 301
O rpheus 287, 297-298, 300, 343, 371, 393
Palace o f H ilkiya 55, 61, 79
P ehora 218, 230
P ekiin 184, 275
Phasael T ow er 14, 49, 51
P hoenician, Architecture 284
T em ple 281
Q um ran 61, 93, 101-102, 120-127
R am a 340, 365
R ap hid 283, 323, 330-331
R eh ov 167, 177-178, 184, 187, 189-190, 197-
198, 224-227, 268, 271, 287, 325, 327, 364,
372, 378-379
R im m on , H orvat 178, 180, 197-199, 221-
224, 249, 268, 397, 399
R o b in so n ’s Arch 28, 31-32
R om e 16, 81-82, 124, 127, 239-240, 249, 251,
254, 271, 291, 295, 321, 328, 336
R om an 3, 5, 13-16, 18, 33, 63, 65, 78, 82, 85,
97, 100, 122, 130-131, 173, 217, 227, 229,
PLATES
1. R econstruction of the Second T em ple by A vi-Y onah (H oly L and H otel, Jerusalem ).
2. G eneral View of T em ple M ou n t Excavations, Jerusalem . 3. M onum ental Stairw ay n ear D ouble G ates, Jerusalem .
6a-c. M osaic Floors in H ouses, U pper C ity, Jerusalem .
 8. T he N azarite Sarcophagus, Jerusalem .

*i
'
r
7a,b. M asada Mosaics. 9a‫־‬c. Stone Fragm ents of O rnam ented D om es, H uldah G ates, Jerusalem .
 11. Gamla Synagogue
10a. M asada Synagogue.

10b. H erodium synagogue.

13. O ssuary with Bones from 14. Inscribed O ssuary from Jericho:
Jericho. “ Y ehoezer son of Y ehoezer G o liath ” in
G reek, upper line, and in A ram aic, lower
line.

15. Inscribed bowl from Jericho.

16. T om b of Z echariah, Jerusalem . 17a‫־‬c. D ecorated O ssuaries, Jerusalem .
 T

18. O rn am en ted O ssuary, Jeru salem (on exhibit, Israel M useum , Jerusalem ).

19. O ssuary, Jericho: “ Y ehoezer, son of E leazar” inscribed in left corner.

21. B arcam Synagogue, facade.

22. M eiron Synagogue, facade. 24. A edicula Lintel, N abratein.

26. cEn Sam sam Relief.

27. Dura Europos Niche. 28. An Aedicula Relief, C horazin.

 29a. cAssalieh Lintel.

30. “ Shell” Sarcophagus, Beth Shecarim .

31. Torah Shrine Relief, Beth Shecarim. 32. Torah Shrine Relief, Pekiin.
33. T om b D oor, K efar Yasif. 34. Stone Plaque (on exhibit, Israel M useum ,
Jerusalem ).

38. Consols, C apernaum .

35. An A edicula R elief F ragm ent, Z um im ra.

39a. Synagogue Facade, C horazin.

39b. Synagogue Facade, K azrin.

 41b. ‫>־‬E shtem oca synagogue.

40a. M ain Portal, B arcam Synagogue. 40b. Side Portal, B arcam Synagogue.

41a. K azrin synagogue. 41c. Susiya synagogue.

 43. Frieze Fragm ent, C apernaum .

42a-f. C apitals: a) C ap ern au m ; b) C aesarea;

c) and d) cEn N eshut; e) K azrin; f) Pehora, 44. Frieze F ragm ent, C apernaum .
pedestal (cEn N eshut).
 45. Frieze Fragm ent, C horazin.

47a,b. Frieze Fragm ents with V intage Scene.

46. Frieze Fragm ent with M ask, C horazin.

52. Mosaic Inscriptions, R ehov.
 55. T irath Zvi, M osaic.

56a,b. M enoroth on M osaic Floor, H useifa.

64. Sacrifice of Isaac, Beth 1‫־‬A lpha.
 66. David of Gaza (at the beginning of excavations). 67. David of Gaza (after 1968 Excavations).

70. Lower Panel, H ouse of Leontis, Beth She-’an.

73. Zodiac, Beth 3A lpha.
 76. Sun G od, M osaic, Beth 3A lpha.

77. Sun G od, M osaic, N acaran.

75. R em ains of Zodiac Circle, Left C orner, Susiya.

 BETH ALPH A H A M M A T H T IB E R IA S

T iberias.
78. Sun God, Mosaic, Hammath

79a‫־‬c. Zodiac Signs: a) Aries, b) T au ru s, c)G em ini.

 S

BETH A LPH A

B E T H A L PH A H A M M A T H T IB E R IA S

B E T H A L PH A

80a-c. Zodiac Signs: a) C ancer, b) Leo, c) V irgo. 81a-c. Zodiac Signs: a) L ibra, b) Scorpio, c) Sagittarius.
BETH A LPHA H A M M A T H TIBERIAS

B E T H A L PH A H A M M A T H T IB E R IA S

83a,b. Seasons: a) Nisan (Spring) and b) Tammuz (Sum m er).

82a‫־‬c. Zodiac Signs: a) C apricorn, b) A quarius, c) Pisces.

N A CA R A N H U S E IF A

She^an
85. Mosaic Floor, Beth
84a-b. Seasons: a) Tishri (A utum n) and b) Tebeth (W inter)
88. cEn Sam sam Relief, Detail.

89a,b. T w o Stone Plaques. 92. Basalt Lion from M ishrafaw i.

 93. C horazin G able.

95. M a coz H ayim M osaic.

94. Fragm ent with Eagle, Dikke.
 m
:

'
99a,b. G aza screens.

100. Bird cage, N acaran mosaic.

 103. Panel of Jew ish Symbols, Beth She3an A.

104. Panel of Jew ish Symbols, Susiya.

102. Panel of Jew ish Symbols, Beth 3A lpha.

105. Panel of Jew ish Symbols, N acaran.

 106. Inscription, Beth She^an

W₪₪₪g₪

107. Room L, M onastery, Beth She^an.